We are all guilty of believing what we see on TV, from realistic drama shows to what we hear on the news. But not everything that appears on TV is real, even though it might seem realistic. A great example of “realistic” TV is all the crime dramas we watch, including shows like Law and Order: Special Victims Unit and CSI. Although these shows seem realistic and represent the criminal justice system in a very real way, there are gaps 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 dramas on television are more likely to expect forensic evidence when presented at a trial in which they are called for jury duty. Depending on the amount of forensic evidence presented at trial affects the final decision, the more forensic evidence the more the jury is skewed towards the side that has the most evidence. Those who often watched crime shows were also believed to be more liars in finding the defendant guilty. This can be problematic because it can lead to guilty people being let go or innocent people being put in prison. In this article we will explore more about the CSI effect through three scientific journals and discover whether CSI truly exists within our criminal justice system. Personally, I am extremely guilty of watching crime television, especially Law and Order: SVU and that show is in its 21st season, running longer than the average television series. There's a reason why shows like these are so popular, it's because they seem realistic and show viewers what it's like to deal with crime every day. Although these shows seem realistic, there are many flaws, such as the crimes themselves seem excessive and exaggerated and everything goes smoothly and in the end the bad guy goes to prison. We say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay In the article The CSI Effect, DNA Disclosure, and Popular Crime Dramas, written by Gayle Rhineberger-Dunn, Steven Briggs, and Nicole Rader, they explore the topic of the CSI effect and what they believe from previous research. They believe there are two components to the definition of the CSI effect, “that viewers of crime shows expect more and better forensic evidence techniques to be provided as evidence in a real trial” (Rhineberger-Dunn, Briggs, & Rader, 2016) which creates an unrealistic expectation or lawyers, prosecutors, judges and police collect this evidence. The other is the expectation from jurors that all forensic evidence is "reliable and infallible", meaning that everything in court is 100% real, there are no errors, which is unrealistic since there are many errors that can easily be made during evidence collection and analysis. Personally, I can understand where these expectations come from being an avid fan of this type of TV, there are never many trials where there is a lack of forensic evidence that has been perfectly collected and analyzed, so it is reasonable to assume that all traces are working correctly. Same. In shows, there is no need to worry about whether the evidence was incorrect or inadequately collected, which is an unrealistic expectation. Many people who work in the criminal justice system feel as if 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 previous interviews with lawyers, police officers, and judges to understand their beliefs. Lawyers believethat the CSI effect can pose a threat not only to the prosecution but also to defense lawyers and that both believe that CSI effects can change the ability of jurors to remain impartial throughout the trial. But if there is forensic evidence presented, by the prosecutor or defense attorney, that jurors may over-rely on the forensics, which could make the trial unfair. In one study, 74% of prosecutors say they have tried cases where jurors expected scientific evidence, and 45% of attorneys believe jurors focused primarily on forensics alone (Maeder & Corbett, 2015). Because of these beliefs, many lawyers admitted that they had to change the way they presented cases differently due to the CSI effect. Judges also believe that the CSI effect has led to erroneous verdicts based on insufficient forensic evidence. Police officers have also been affected by this theory saying they are concerned that these television series show an inaccurate representation of their work. Because the police in television shows tend to be the idea of ​​perfect cops, real police now have an unrealistic expectation of what they can accomplish, this can lead to a potential loss of public trust. Another problem the police face is that their testimonies in court are no longer important as lawyers tend to focus more on physical evidence rather than police testimonies. For all these reasons, the police changed the way they interacted with the public due to the CSI effect (Maeder & Corbett, 2015). We've discussed what the CSI effect is and how it affects people who work in the justice system, but now the question 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 should believe. In the article “The Jury is Still Out: How Watching Television and Crime Shows Affects Jurors' Evaluation of Evidence,” written by Rebecca M. Hayes-Smith, they composed multiple experiments. They first explored a previous study in which a mock rape trial was given to college students, who included people who had and had not watched crime television, playing mock jurors. Overall, in the end, they all came to the same conclusion that the defendant was not guilty due to lack of physical evidence. This experiment concluded that the results did not support the idea that those exposed to crime television tended to find the defendant guilty. But they found that when jurors reviewed a case with weak forensic evidence but strong evidence that was not forensic, those who watched more crime television programs were less likely to find the defendant guilty than non-crime program watchers (Hayes-Smith & Levett, 2011). Even in the other two articles we have already read we came to the conclusion that the results were conflicting. One article found that three of the eight experiments found no evidence of forensic evidence and that the results of the tests are conflicting. Please note: this is just a sample. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Overall the research supports some ideas but not all, it shows that people can be influenced but to some extent, although the theory makes sense it somewhat downgrades humans by accusing them of being so gullible. As a huge Law and Order fan, when I first saw this theory I thought it was silly and unrealistic, but the more.