The ‘CSI effect’ apparently occurs when jurors, witnesses and others have raised expectations about the amount and quality of forensic evidence available during trials, as a result of watching CSI, Law and Order and similar crime entertainment shows. The term has also been used to refer to the way in which criminals apparently change their modus operandi to take account of forensic science advances.
According to Donald Shelton and colleagues from Michigan, the ‘CSI effect’ might be a misnomer. The researchers surveyed more than 1000 real jurors about their expectations of forensic evidence, and about their TV habits.
The authors explain in their abstract:
… While the study did find significant expectations and demands for scientific evidence, there was little or no indication of a link between those preconceptions and watching particular television shows. The authors suggest that to the extent that jurors have significant expectations and demands for scientific evidence, it may have more to do with a broader “tech effect” in our popular culture rather than any particular “CSI effect.” At the same time, this article contends that any such increased expectations and demands are legitimate and constitutionally based reflections in jurors of changes in our popular culture, and that the criminal justice system must adapt to accommodate jurors’ expectations and demands for scientific evidence.
Reference:
- Donald E. Shelton, Gregg Barak, and Young S. Kim. (2007). A Study of Juror Expectations and Demands Concerning Scientific Evidence: Does the “CSI Effect” Exist? [PDF] Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law 9.2: 331-368.
Hat tip to the Freakonomics blog (29 May).
Photo credit: Samboomba, Creative Commons License
2 Comments
As one of the co-authors of “A Study of Juror Expectations and Demands Concerning Scientific Evidence…”, I think one of the most interesting hypotheses about the alleged CSI effect that we did not investigate is whether or not attorneys, particularly prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers and to a lesser extent judges and other legal litigators, have or are experiencing a “CSI effect?
I happen to believe that we would find that a positive relationship does exist here. In other words, if there is an effect, it has little, if anything, to do with jurors and perhaps everything to do with the criminal legal profession. An easy test of this hypothesis would be to track the opening and closing statements of prosecutors and defense attorneys before and after the popularity of the TV series and its spin off on the various criminal trial scenarios that we tested.
In short, these prosecuting and defense attorneys are paying attention and shaping their arguments on their rising expectations of what they think “jurors want” based on their own changing expectations from watching these TV dramas.
Gregg Barak
the statement is fine.
gb
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] Channel to ’study’ how to litrally get away with murder. But is this really the case? CrimePsychBlog might have the [...]
Post a Comment