RJA #11: Argument

Does the CSI Effect exist in the courtroom? yes

Reasons-

1. Juries believe what they see on tv and think they are experts. - Ramsland,
   Katherine. The C.S.I. Effect. New York: Berkley Boulevard Books, 2006. N. pag.
   Print.
2. The jury is not convicting because they don't believe the evidence is enough
   for them. -Andrew P. Thomas, The CSI Effect: Fact or Fiction, 115
   Yale L.J. Pocket Part 70 (2006), http://www.thepocketpart.org/2006/02/thomas.html.
3. Tv shows use certain techniques and programs that aren't used but there is some
   kind of variant of it that doesn't always work like in the shows. An example is
   the fingerprint system tv shows use that come up with a hit instantly but in
   reality there are multiple systems that are either local or federal and it takes
   days to get anything from them. -tv shows and forensic science classes

Objections-

1. no proof so it doesn't exist -http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/sidebar-csi-effect/sJVuBszo747utTrLSJ8O6Q
   (news video)
2. not a csi effect but a tech effect -http://www.llrx.com/features/forensicevidencecsieffect.htm

Refutations-

1. The video said there is no evidence so its not there but I think its wrong because people have recognized it and some data has been collected on it now.
2. A tech effect is quite possible the actual effect but I don't think its just one thing. I think its the combination of false representation and the advancement in technology thats causing the effect.

RJA #10a: Claim

Does the CSI Effect exist in the courtroom?Yes it does exist with the combination of tv shows and the advancement in technology (tech effect). -All my sources tend to have both yes and no but most lean towards yes. I have at least one source that says no overall. A source for yes is Ramsland, Katherine. The C.S.I. Effect. New York: Berkley BoulevardBooks, 2006. N. pag. Print.

RJA #10c: Objections

• no proof so it doesn't exist -http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/sidebar-csi-effect/sJVuBszo747utTrLSJ8O6Q (news video)
• not a csi effect but a tech effect -http://www.llrx.com/features/forensicevidencecsieffect.htm
• its not just one effect it is the combination of the csi and tech effect- my opinion

RJA #10b: Reasons

1. The jury is not convicting because they don't believe the evidence is enough for them. -
   Andrew P. Thomas, The CSI Effect: Fact or Fiction, 115 Yale L.J. Pocket Part 70 (2006), http://www.thepocketpart.org/2006/02/thomas.html.
2. Juries believe what they see on tv and think they are experts. - Ramsland, Katherine. The C.S.I. Effect. New York: Berkley Boulevard Books, 2006. N. pag. Print.
3. Evidence should be a connect the dots and "leave the jury no choice but to convict". - Ramsland, Katherine. The C.S.I. Effect. New York: Berkley Boulevard Books, 2006. N. pag. Print.
4. An investigators involvement normally ends with collection of evidence but tv shows them doing the collection, tests, and investigation. -CSI tv shows and "Scene of the Crime." Inside Story. Host Bill Kurtis. A&E Network. 29 Dec. 1998. DVD-ROM.
5. Tv shows use certain techniques and programs that aren't used but there is some kind of variant of it that doesn't always work like in the shows. An example is the fingerprint system tv shows use that come up with a hit instantly but in reality there are multiple systems that are either local or federal and it takes days to get anything from them. -tv shows and forensic science classes
   

RJA #9b: Freewriting

Does a "CSI Effect" exist in the courtroom?

A CSI Effect can exist in a courtroom due to the viewing of television programs based on forensic science and criminal justice. Shows like Law and Order, CSI: LV, CSI: NY, and CSI: Miami are some possible sources of tainted criminal justice. The combination of crime scene shows and the "tech effect" (better technology creating an image of perfect evidence) could be the real culprit. Without proof of the existence of this effect the entire thing could be denied of existence. Its more of a psychological effect instead of physical effect. Tests have been conducted on control groups but there is no substantial evidence and proves the existence of the effect. Some people think its just the tech effect that is effecting people but there is not proof of that either. Juries have been asked after trials what influenced their decisions but that does not mean that the people were telling the truth. Juries have asked for DNA, fingerprints, and other types of evidence when it was necessary for the charge that the defendent is facing. The CSI tv series are the biggest and most noticable contributers to the CSI Effect. The tech effect contributor could also be coming from tv shows because of the techniques that are used for forensic evidence processing such as instant hits on fingerprints. Another one is the constant use of ballistic gel bodies and other objects is not real unless the police department is rich because it costs a lot of money. The investigators on the tv shows carry a handgun normally but in real life a crime scene investigator is not a cop so doesn't carry a gun.

RJA #9a: MLA-Style Annotated Bibliography

Andrew P. Thomas, The CSI Effect: Fact or Fiction, 115 Yale L.J. Pocket Part 70 (2006), http://www.thepocketpart.org/2006/02/thomas.html.

This article was written by a chief prosecutor who is taking measures to counter the CSI Effect by bringing it to the attention of the jury by asking them certain questions and giving them certain instructions that will help them disregard the effect all together. This article also has a link to the full research experiment that was conducted to see if the effect really existed. Most of the experiment was controlled and depended on what the people said (no way to know if they're telling the truth). The article has a preferred citation on it provided by the author. He also makes the point that as the popularity of the tv series (CSI) rises, the ability to control the effect will need new techniques.This is relevant to my research because it provides an experiment for what my research is about.

Ramsland, Katherine. The C.S.I. Effect. New York: Berkley Boulevard
Books, 2006. N. pag. Print.

This book is more about discussing actual forensic technology through comparing it to the tv shows techniques. A very specific definition of real and fiction is stated at the very beginning of the book making it very obvious that the tv shows state otherwise. Example cases such as the OJ Simpson case were used to show that investigators do make mistakes. The book covers techniques involved in most if not all fields of forensics and even covers disorders that some people have when they commit heinous crimes. This book is relevant to my research because it describes real techniques and computer programs instead of the stuff that they show on tv.

"Scene of the Crime." Inside Story. Host Bill Kurtis. A&E Network. 29 Dec. 1998. DVD-ROM.

This dvd was originally made to show people the life of a crime scene investigator and how it effects them emotionally. A camera man follows a few of the Baltimore investigators and show viewers some of the things that the investigators go through and a few of the techniques that could be out of date because the video is from 1998. This video also pointed out that the investigators are not cops or detectives and their involvement normally ends with the collection of the evidence. The best part I found from this video is that you get to see things from the investigators point of view (closest to from their eyes).

RJA #8c: Field Research Plan

My field research is going to be an interview with Susan Wright. She was a crime scene investigator for Baltimore City, Maryland, Montgomery County, Maryland, and now teaches forensic science in Ohio. Her specialty field in forensics is blood spatter. She taught my forensic classes at Northern Virginia Community College and has a Biology degree from George Washington University. I'll be conducting the interview through email and will be using one of videos she was in for background information in my argument. I'm not positive of the questions I'm going to ask yet but they will revolve around if she believes in the existence of the effect, how and why she thinks it exists, and I'll probaly ask for specific examples if possible.

RJA #8b: Background Essay Plan

Real CSI's today are not what everyone tends to think they are.

• what is a csi?
• fiction vs. reality investigations
• controversy
• my experiences with investigative techniques

RJA #8a: Summary

http://www.llrx.com/features/forensicevidencecsieffect.htm

This article covered both sides of my argument and even added in a new piece of information that I can use. The "CSI Effect" is just a more specific term for the "tech effect" that makes people expect better evidence because of technological advances. Some say that the effect can not be proven to exist or not exist because they haven't been able to find a connection between the tv shows and convictions. There have been controlled studies but they have not revealed the existence of the effect or not. This article has multiple links to other articles as well that are related to my argument and some of them even have the studies conducted on juries after trials and mentions the ones during jury selection evaluations.

RJA #7b: Webpage Annotation

Diigo Library

1. CSI Effect work in reverse

2. The CSI Effect: Fact or Fiction

RJA #7a: Evaluation of Sources

1. Book: Author- Katherine Ramsland

Title- The C.S.I. Effect

Copyright- 2006

Publisher- Berkley Publishing Group

City- New York

The C.S.I. Effect is a book that tells how evidence is actually processed in reality and points out certain things that are majorly effecting jury decisions (fingerprint for example). The book also uses specific cases to put certain types of evidence into context. The author's educational history is a masters in forensic psychology from John Jay College of Criminal Justice, masters in clinical psychology, and a PhD in philosophy, teaches forensic psychology at DeSales University, and she has written numerous other books related to forensic science. This book was published by Berkley Publishing Group (branch from Penguin) in 2006. I think this is a good source for my argument, even though some of the technology could have changed, because it gives examples of how the effect could exist.

2. Periodical: Author- Dante E. Mancini

Title- The CSI Effect Reconsidered: Is it Moderated by Need for Cognition

Source- North American Journal of Psychology 2011 Volume 13 Issue 1, pages 155-174

This article was found using Academic Search Premier but is only the abstract. What little information it has it talks about both sides of my topic. It talks about the lack of evidence of the "effect" and the viewing of CSI type shows swaying people to want more evidence to convict someone. The source is the North American Journal of Psychology 2011 Volume 13 Issue 1. The author is affiliated with the Saint Vincent College. I like this source because it mentions both sides of my topic.

3. Website: Andrew P. Thomas, The CSI Effect: Fact or Fiction, 115 Yale L.J. Pocket Part 70 (2006), http://www.thepocketpart.org/2006/02/thomas.html.

This web article was one of the few that I found that actually had a study of some sort in it. The study was done on jurys and lawyers of one area unforunately but it does so show that something is influenceing jurys towards their decisions. I think this article is good because of the study that it has a link to, the statistics it provides, and that it has the quotes of the people from the study admitting that they that there wasn't enough evidence (or concrete evidence). This article is from 2006 but the information it provides is more a psychological study instead a physical evidence study. This article comes from the Yale Law Journal so its from a highly respectable school.