The "CSI Effect" in an Actual Juror Sample: Why Crime Show Genre May Matter

Abstract

There is little doubt that the American public has taken a keen interest in crime investigation and forensic science over the past decade, particularly as reflected in television programming. In a recent Frontline program episode entitled Real well-known forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht remarked, There's this great, great hunger, this incredible fascination with forensic science. I often quip that we are up there now with sex, motherhood, apple pie, and baseball (Cediel & Bergman, 2012). This interest has likely been sparked by the enormous popularity of television programs such as CBS network's CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and a plethora of other crime and forensic science-based programs. In June 2012, at the end of its twelfth season, CSI was named the most watched television program in the world for the fifth time in seven years, with an estimated 63 million viewers worldwide (Bibel, 2012), and clone program NCIS: Naval Criminal Investigative Service was named the most popular television program in America during the 2012-13 season, even garnering more viewers than Sunday Night Football (Patten, 2013). Furthermore, as of this writing, CSI, NCIS, and NCIS: Los Angeles can all be found among the ten most watched programs in a given week in the United States (The Nielsen Company, 2013). Although less popular than fictional programs, documentary-style crime programs based on actual criminal cases have also proliferated in the past decade, such as AE Toobin, 2005). A majority of these media reports have suggested that programs such as CSI have led to unrealistic juror expectations for forensic evidence (Harvey & Derksen, 2009). As of this writing, at least four books have been published on the subject (Byers & Johnson, 2009; McDonald, 2009; Ramsland, 2006; Stevens, 2011), and some scholars have proposed more wide-ranging effects. Cole and Dioso-Villa (2009, 2011), for instance, outlined eight subtypes of the CSI to clarify its extensive influence on jurors, police and forensic investigators, attorneys and judges, educational institutions, and the general public. Of these subtypes, perhaps the most threatening to the criminal justice system is the prosecutor's effect in which jurors who are heavy viewers of forensic science television programs develop unrealistically high standards for the availability and utility of scientific evidence, and when they are undoubtedly disappointed with actual forensic evidence presented in court, they are more likely to acquit defendants compared to their non-viewing cohorts. The potential impact of the strong prosecutor's remains a hotly debated topic, with some speculation that it may have played a part in some of the more media sensationalized acquittals, such as in the criminal trials of Robert Blake or Casey Anthony (e.g., Blankstein & Guccione, 2005; Heinrick, 2006; Picht, 2011; Ryan, 2011). The CSI is presently among the most highly conjectured media effects (Sarapin & Sparks, 2009). …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.