Is the CSI effect a good thing or a bad thing. ( Archived) (4)

Some have criticized the show for educating criminals on how to leave a “squeaky clean” crime scene, dubbed the “CSI effect” by critics. It goes on to say that the CSI effect has been blamed for criminals taking precautions like removing shell casings from crime scenes and wearing condoms during rape so as not to leave DNA evidence.
In a legal study survey respondents expect the prosecution to present some kind of scientific evidence? Our survey indicated that:

* 46 percent expected to see some kind of scientific evidence in all cases
* 22 percent expected to see DNA evidence in every criminal case.
* 36 percent expected to see fingerprint evidence in every criminal case.
* 32 percent expected to see ballistic or other firearms laboratory evidence in every criminal case.

Example, a higher percentage of respondents expected to see DNA evidence in the more serious violent offenses, such as murder or attempted murder (46 percent) and rape (73 percent), than in other types of crimes. their findings also indicated that a higher percentagewanted to see fingerprint evidence in breaking and entering cases (71 percent), any theft case (59 percent).

* In the "every crime" scenario, CSI viewers were more likely to convict without scientific evidence if eyewitness testimony was available.
* In rape cases, CSI viewers were less likely to convict if DNA evidence was not presented.
Famous Example


The Robert Blake murder trial, the jury voted to acquit him. The
question of the CSI effect was raised in Robert Blake’s acquittal.
The prosecution felt that it had a strong case against Robert
Blake. His alibi was that he “left his gun in the car”, went to
collect it, and found his wife with a bullet in her head. There
was also sworn testimony that Mr. Blake had tried to hire
someone to kill his wife and openly discussed having her killed.
The prosecution felt that even though the physical evidence
was lacking, the witness testimony and the odd behavior of
Mr. Blake himself was damning.
The jury, however, needed the hard evidence. Due
to a lack of gun shot residue and blood on his clothes, the jury
voted to acquit Robert Blake. The Los Angeles district attorney
in charge of prosecuting him called the jurors “incredibly
stupid” (2). It is rare for an attorney to publicly criticize the
jurors, but in this case, his frustration is understood. The
district attorney firmly believes that the CSI effect
was involved in the jury’s decision to acquit Mr. Blake.
Shellie Samuels, the lead prosecutor in the 2005 Robert Blake murder trial, probably wishes that her jury had been asked beforehand if they were CSI fans. Samuels tried to convince them that Blake shot and killed his wife in 2001. Samuels illustrated Blake's motive: she presented 70 witnesses who testified against him, including two who stated - under oath - that Blake had asked them to kill his wife. Seems like a lock for a conviction, right? Wrong. "They couldn't put the gun in his hand," said jury foreman Thomas Nicholson, who along with his peers acquitted Blake. "There was no blood splatter. They had nothing." The verdict sent a clear message throughout the legal community: Juries will convict only on solid forensic evidence.(thank goodness)

Bottom Line
Our legal system demands proof beyond a reasonable doubt before the government is allowed to punish an alleged criminal. When a scientific test is available that would produce evidence of guilt or innocence—but the prosecution chooses not to perform that test and present its results to the jury—it may be reasonable for a jury to doubt the strength of the government's case. This reality may seem unreasonable to some, but that is not the issue. Rather, it is how the criminal justice system will respond to juror expectations.

One response to this change in expectations would be to get the evidence that jurors seek.