We are all guilty of believing what we see on television, whether it's realistic drama shows or even what we hear on the news. But not everything is real on television, no matter how realistic it may seem. A great example of "realistic" television is all the cop shows we see, including shows like Law and Order: Special Victims Unit and CSI. Although these shows appear realistic and depict the justice and criminal system in a very real way, there are discrepancies between what happens on the show and what happens in real life. The CSI effect is the theory that people who tend to watch crime television series are more likely to expect forensic evidence when presented at a trial where they are called to serve on the jury . Depending on the amount of forensic evidence presented at trial, this has an effect on the final decision: the more forensic evidence, the more the jury is biased towards the side with the most evidence. He also felt that those who frequently watched crime drama shows were more cunning in convicting the accused. This can be problematic because it can lead to guilty people walking or innocent people being put in prison. In this article, we will explore more information about the CSI effect through three scientific reviews and find out if CSI actually exists within our criminal justice system. Personally, I'm extremely guilty of watching crime TV shows, especially Law and Order: SVU and this show is in its 21st season, which is longer than the average TV series. There's a reason shows like these are so popular, it's because they seem realistic and they show viewers what it's like to deal with crime on a daily basis. Although these series seem realistic, they have many flaws, such as the crimes themselves seem exaggerated and exaggerated and everything turns out well and in the end the bad guy goes to prison. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get an original essayIn the article The CSI Effect, DNA Disclosure, and Popular Crime Dramas, written by Gayle Rhineberger-Dunn, Steven Briggs, and Nicole Rader , the explore the topic of the CSI effect and what they think about previous research. They believe there are two elements to the definition of the CSI effect: "viewers of crime shows expect more and better forensic evidence techniques to be presented as evidence in a real trial” (Rhineberger-Dunn, Briggs, & Rader, 2016), which creates an unrealistic expectation of lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and police gathering this evidence. The other is the expectation of jurors that all forensic evidence be "reliable and infallible", meaning that everything present in court is 100% factual and there are no errors , which is unrealistic because many errors are easy to make during collection and analysis. evidence. Personally, I can see where these expectations come from, being a huge fan of this type of television. There are never many trials where there is a lack of perfectly collected and analyzed forensic evidence, so it is reasonable to assume that all leads work. even. In the shows, there is no worry if the evidence was wrong or poorly collected, which is an unrealistic expectation. Many people working in the criminal justice system feel they have been affected by the CSI effect. In the journal article “Beyond Frequency: Perceived Realism and the CSI Effect,” written by Evelyn M. Maeder and Richard Corbett, they examine surveys and past interviews with lawyers, police officers, and judges to understand their beliefs. For lawyers, they believe that the CSI effect can pose a threat not only to the prosecution but also to defense attorneys and that they both believe that the CSI effects can alter the ability of jurors to remain impartial while throughout the trial. But if forensic evidence is presented, either by the prosecutor or the defense attorney, jurors may rely too much on the forensic analysis that it could make the trial unfair. In one study, 74% of prosecutors reported trying cases in which jurors expected scientific evidence and 45% of attorneys believed jurors primarily focused only on forensics (Maeder & Corbett, 2015). Because of these beliefs, many lawyers have admitted that they have had to change how they present cases differently due to the CSI effect. Even judges believe in the CSI effect and that it has led to erroneous verdicts due to insufficient forensic evidence. Police officers have also been affected by this theory, expressing concern that these TV series misrepresent their work. Since the police in TV shows tend to be the idea of ​​perfect cops, real police now have unrealistic expectations of what they can accomplish, which can lead to a potential loss of trust from the police. from the public. Another problem police face is that their testimonies in court are no longer important since lawyers tend to focus more on physical evidence rather than police testimony. For all these reasons, the police have changed the way they interact with the public thanks to the CSI effect (Maeder and Corbett, 2015). We've discussed what the CSI effect is and how it affects people who work in the justice system, but the question now remains whether it works. The answer is that it doesn't, but it does. Many studies have shown that there is some correlation, but it is not as specific and direct as one might think. In the article "The Jury is Still Out: How Watching TV and Crime Shows Influences Jurors' Evaluations of Evidence," written by Rebecca M. Hayes-Smith, composed several experiments. They first explored a previous study in which a mock rape trial was conducted with undergraduate students, including people who had and had not watched crime television, playing the role of mock jurors. In the end, they all came to the same conclusion, that the accused was not guilty due to the lack of physical evidence. This experiment concluded that the results did not support the idea that people exposed to police television tended to find the accused guilty. But they found that when jurors considered a case with weak forensic evidence but strong evidence that was not, those who watched more crime television were less likely to find the defendant guilty than court watchers. non-criminal broadcasts (Hayes-Smith & Levett, 2011). In the other two papers we've already looked at, they also came to the conclusion that the results were mixed. One article found that three of eight experiments failed to find forensic evidence, and the evidence results are mixed. Keep in mind: this is just one.