The jury system in America can be viewed as a cornerstone of American democracy. It is the only place within the Criminal Justice System where the average American can participate without any legal experience or expertise. As Americans, there is a reliance on jurors to make fair, unbiased and relatively quick decisions (Cole and Dioso-Villa 2007). Since the early 2000s, the media has propagated the myth that television shows like CSI, which use forensic science, have created a “CSI Effect.” If this CSI Effect were true, it would dismantle the jury system and create real questions concerning the reliability of the decision making process. In this paper, it will be argued that the CSI Effect is nothing more than a media myth and the evidence
…show more content…
Mancini says it is important to distinguish between sub-genres because each depicts the “availability, efficiency and utility of forensics” differently (2013). In defining sub-genres of crime shows, he means the difference in prime time television or documentary style shows. Mancini says that its also interesting to look at this because it could tell personality characteristics based off of preferred sub-genre. Those who watch more reality based or documentary style shows possess a harder stance on punishment and increased racial prejudice (2013). The result of Mancini’s study found limited support for the “Strong Prosecutor’s Effect.” He also found that people who tended to watch a lot of fictional based crime shows tended to be more likely to acquit (2013). Mancini relates his findings to cultivation theory. Cultivation theory claims that regularly repeated images presented through television can create a distorted perception of the real world (2013). In his research, Mancini shows that something similar to the “Strong Prosecutor’s Effect” may occur, but again, it has no direct baring on the jury decision making …show more content…
Before delving into her study, Wise takes a shot at Shelton by claiming that he is wrong to dismiss the fact that jurors expect forensic evidence (Wise 2010). This shot is unfounded because Shelton never claims that there is not an increase in juror expectations, he simply relates the phenomena to the Tech Effect instead of the CSI Effect (Shelton, Kim, Barak 2009). Wise conducted semi-structured interviews with police officers, forensic scientists and those who work in the courtroom. She recounts their stories of first hand experience of the CSI Effect. Wise does concede that her study was anything but rigorous and that her results are far from generalizable due to her small sample (2010). She attempts to bolster her study by citing four ways that the show CSI created a public awareness. First, it created an increase in student enrollment in the forensic science field to the point where universities actually created new courses. Second, there is increased funding for forensics. The funds allow labs to produce results faster for legal proceedings. Third, there is increased interest in forensic evidence by jurors. Lastly, in some instances, crime victims have actually led investigators back to the scene to show them the best place to maybe retrieve DNA or fingerprints (2010). Although interesting, Wise’s argument is nothing more than anecdotal and is not backed up by empirical research. It seems almost as though she has a flaw in logic. She has heard stories from
Mancini says it is important to distinguish between sub-genres because each depicts the “availability, efficiency and utility of forensics” differently (2013). In defining sub-genres of crime shows, he means the difference in prime time television or documentary style shows. Mancini says that its also interesting to look at this because it could tell personality characteristics based off of preferred sub-genre. Those who watch more reality based or documentary style shows possess a harder stance on punishment and increased racial prejudice (2013). The result of Mancini’s study found limited support for the “Strong Prosecutor’s Effect.” He also found that people who tended to watch a lot of fictional based crime shows tended to be more likely to acquit (2013). Mancini relates his findings to cultivation theory. Cultivation theory claims that regularly repeated images presented through television can create a distorted perception of the real world (2013). In his research, Mancini shows that something similar to the “Strong Prosecutor’s Effect” may occur, but again, it has no direct baring on the jury decision making …show more content…
Before delving into her study, Wise takes a shot at Shelton by claiming that he is wrong to dismiss the fact that jurors expect forensic evidence (Wise 2010). This shot is unfounded because Shelton never claims that there is not an increase in juror expectations, he simply relates the phenomena to the Tech Effect instead of the CSI Effect (Shelton, Kim, Barak 2009). Wise conducted semi-structured interviews with police officers, forensic scientists and those who work in the courtroom. She recounts their stories of first hand experience of the CSI Effect. Wise does concede that her study was anything but rigorous and that her results are far from generalizable due to her small sample (2010). She attempts to bolster her study by citing four ways that the show CSI created a public awareness. First, it created an increase in student enrollment in the forensic science field to the point where universities actually created new courses. Second, there is increased funding for forensics. The funds allow labs to produce results faster for legal proceedings. Third, there is increased interest in forensic evidence by jurors. Lastly, in some instances, crime victims have actually led investigators back to the scene to show them the best place to maybe retrieve DNA or fingerprints (2010). Although interesting, Wise’s argument is nothing more than anecdotal and is not backed up by empirical research. It seems almost as though she has a flaw in logic. She has heard stories from