Homework #3 - Michael Benbow MJB883 Wednesday 1:30-5:30 PAI...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Michael Benbow MJB883 Wednesday 1:30-5:30 PAI 1.40 Homework #3 1. Define the CSI effect. The CSI Effect is the claim or complaint offered by some people/lawyers that due to the popularity of the TV show CSI, the public, and therefore jurors, now expect if not require an inordinate, sometimes unattainable, amount of forensic evidence in order to convict (or acquit, depending on the circumstances). It has also had an effect on the police force as well. According to the article, police “now collect more pieces of physical evidence than ever before.” 2. What evidence is there for or against the CSI effect? There is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence for the CSI effect. One such instance was described in the article about jurors complaining “that a bloody coat had not been tested for DNA, even though such tests were unnecessary” or when the “testimony from two eyewitnesses was trumped by a lack of physical evidence” in a murder trial in Baltimore. There have been studies done, however they do not substantiate the CSI effect. The article says, “the first study of the CSI effect … concluded that the chances of, and reasoning for, acquittals were the same for frequent CSI viewers as for prospective jurors who did not watch the show—she saw no CSI effect.” This shows that while there is some convincing anecdotal evidence, there is no scientific proof for the CSI effect. 3. The scenarios played-out on CSI do not approach reality. Name two ways in which CSI and reality do not agree. One way in which CSI and reality differ is when forensic evidence is used and needed. Since the tests can be expensive and unnecessary, they are often forgone as a cost-saving and time-saving measure. The National District Attorney Association says, “Jurors now expect us to have a DNA test for just about every case. They expect us to have the most advanced technology possible, and they expect it to look like it does on television.” A judge also remarked, “TV had taught jurors about DNA tests but not about when they should be used.” They are also prohibited by time often, making it difficult to produce the expected results. The article states, “television shows incorrectly portray forensic scientists as having ample time for every case; several TV detectives, technicians and scientists often devote their full attention to one investigation. In reality, individual scientists will have many cases assigned to them. Most forensics labs find backlogs to be a major problem.” Another way in which CSI and reality differ is in regards to the amount of physical evidence found at a real crime scene. Jurors expect a vast amount of accessible forensic evidence in every case, even when this simply isn’t possible. The article even state that in order to counter this assumption, “they have put so-called negative evidence witnesses on the stand to alert jurors to
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 10/13/2009 for the course BIO 325L taught by Professor Franks during the Spring '08 term at University of Texas.

Page1 / 4

Homework #3 - Michael Benbow MJB883 Wednesday 1:30-5:30 PAI...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online