Hi Susan, I finally came up with some questions for that interview. Thank you for your help.
-What is the CSI Effect?The CSI Effect is when the members of a jury mistakenly believe that there should be forensic evidence from the crime scene to convict a defendant, and the lack of any such evidence is 'reasonable doubt' that the defendant is not guilty.
-Do you believe it exists? Why? I do believe it exists, and have seen it firsthand. The American jury is comprised of average citizens who watch television and hear of forensic cases on the internet. They are becoming acquainted with fictional and exaggerated events, and then expect that the courtroom will be filled with these same types of evidence.
-What is causing it?There are several forces at work here. When I was in undergraduate school, very few people knew what forensic science was. Then, the OJ Simpson double murder trial became a front page story, and the introduction of tv camerass in the courtroom meant that the OJ trial was broadcast into everyone's living rooms. Many saw the power of forensic evidence at work for the first time, and the seeds of curiousity were planted. Soonafter the trial, reality television began to follow crime scene investigators and detectives around on real crime scenes, thereby replacing the older cop show drama with reality-based television. Following this, several fictional shows began to air, and the CSI series have become incredibly successful. As a result of the popularity of forensics, educators from elementary school up through high school have introduced students to various aspects of chemistry, biology, and physics using forensic cases in an attempt to 'sell' math and science careers. The only downside of this popularity is that the line between reality and fantasy has blurred, and many laypersons are no longer aware whether what they are watching is true science or pure fiction.
-When did you first notice it?I started seeing prosecutors who were reluctant to go to court on cases that did not have DNA or fingerprint evidence. They were not willing to 'risk' a trial loss with witnesses, or other types of circumstantial evidence, no matter how strong the detective thought the case was. Thus, detectives began calling for crime scene investigators on their cases far more frequently, even to minor scenes such as burglaries, in the hopes that we might find something forensic to go to court with.
-How could it be countered?Education is the only way we can combat the CSI Effect. We need to educate our juries on what can be done forensically, and what is not possible with current technology. For instance, it is important to remind the jury that fingerprints cannot be found on every type of surface, and that DNA is not left at every scene. So when we don't find these types of evidence, the jury does not doubt the efforts to find evidence were made.
I don't know if I need credentials but it would be safe to have enough so that this source shows its from someone that was in this field. If there's anything else that you can think that will help that would be awesome. Thank you again for your help.
My credentials- BA in Biology at Clark University, Masters of Forensic Sicence at George Washington University, worked as a CSI in Baltimore City PD, and worked as a forensic specialist II for Montgomery County PD. Now a full time Forensic Science professor at YSU.
Sincerely,
Marylin Gray
What I found out from this field research is that this effect has been around for many years now and it was caused because police officer mess ups peaked peoples interests and lead to the creation of crime dramas that go off of forensic evidence.
