CSI Effect: Do People Believe Real Criminal Investigation?

“We are being detoured into the land of make-believe” was said by a character on the well-known show CSI Miami by a character named Horatio Caine. On television, a crime drama series called CSI: Crime Scene Investigation was created by a man named Anthony Zuiker. This show has become a foundation for what people believe real criminal investigation is meant to be like. This phenomenon is called the CSI Effect. This well known television show has an exaggerated look into the forensics side of the criminal justice system, and because of this, people are led to think that is what it should always be like in investigations. An example of the CSI Effect and how it affects our criminal justice system is a case in Arizona; a case of burglary; where
a witness testified that the defendant was seen by a witness hauling a stereo from the store, as well as tools in his car when he was arrested. The suspect was liberated because jurors claimed that police investigators should have found the man's fingerprints inside of the store he did commit this burglary. Because of this small detail, where people think fingerprints are needed for the person to be guilty, it caused what basically was a guilty man, to be exonerated.
The CSI Effect makes people believe that investigating a crime is a lot simpler and faster than it actually is. Finding fingerprints is not as one, two, three like the shows make it seem it is. Very rarely are fingerprints even found at crime scenes because they are so hard to find unless they are visible. Crime scene labs are very much under funded.
Peoria State’s Attorney Kevin Lyons said that the show CSI “projects the image that all cases are solvable by highly technical science, and if you offer less than that, it is viewed as reasonable doubt.” People who should have been found guilty have been exonerated because of the fact that jurors watch these shows and think that the crime should have a good base of scientific evidence or there is not enough evidence to convict a person.
The case above has no actual scientific evidence but in the eyes of the law, it is able to sustain a reasonable conviction, even if they only had the tools and an eye witness. Another case in Peoria Illinois was of a gang member being prosecuted for raping a teenage girl in a local part. The evidence that came up in that case was his saliva on her breast as well as a gripping testimony from the victim, the emergency room nurse, and the police. You would think with this evidence, especially the DNA from the defendant, the saliva on the breast, was enough evidence, but when the time came for the jurors to convict whether he was guilty or not, they shocked the courtroom by claiming the defendant was not guilty. Jurors claimed the investigators should have gotten a soil sample and should have seen if it matched from the park’s soil. They saw this on television which is how they knew it was even possible to test the
soil.
These crime scene investigation shows should be labeled with a warning that not everything in the show expresses how a crime scene should work.
Jurors should also know that if you have select evidence that guarantees the person, there should be no need to waste resources trying to find evidence that is not really needed. These shows are for entertainment purposes and dramatized to an extreme extent. It is also on a “fastfoward” to fit within the time frame of the show. In the show, it may take a few seconds or a maximum of a minute to get a result back on forensics where in real life it takes much longer. Not all fingerprints are in the database, therefore even if you found this so called scientific evidence, there was no saying if you would actually find a match. The same goes for DNA samples. To prevent guilty suspects from going free because jurors feel there is not enough scientific evidence, we should be informing people of what evidence is sufficient enough for a conviction. Instead of people thinking there is not enough scientific evidence, citizens should know that an eyewitness, or even proof that is directly correlated with the suspect is enough to convict someone. People should know that DNA, fingerprint, soil analysis, and anything else is not as simple as television makes it seem. Things take time, money, and resources that necessarily don't have to be wasted if other evidence is adequate enough for a conviction. Judges should also step in at this moment to make
sure criminals do not evade justice just because television has a fictionalized series that is overly dramatized for the mere purpose of entertainment. Our American criminal justice system must set all the facts straight to ensure true justice is served. The CSI Effect has made waves in our justice system, and it should be fixed. Although many people hate jury duty, others see it as a chance to see all the cool science stuff live in action, when it is not in fact how it works at all. People watch too much television and need to learn these shows are amplified for merriment and entertainment of the public, not necessarily all factual.