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.