Interesting cover story in US News this week on the so called CSI Effect. Juries have unrealistic expectations in real life trials based on the TV show and end up acquitting people they probably shouldn't. Some of the examples in the story are kind of frightening.

I know when I tell people that the shows are in absolutely no way realistic, fans always say "... it's just a TV show. I know it isn't real ..." But I think most people actually believe that CSI reflects how crime labs and police work.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture...0425/25csi.htm

I hope so. There is no other system in as much need of harm as our legal system.


Honestly, I think they needed to find a story, and making one with something popular like CSI was a good way to sell magazines.

the DA mentioned CSI when I was going for jury duty. said there'd be a lot of lab type evidence (I guess to verify what drugs the guy was busted with) but that lab stuff wasn't as cool in real life as on csi

If the OJ trial were held now, he would probably be convicted. The prosecutors wouldn't have had to try to explain DNA evidence to the jurors.

I read a story about the flip side of that coin, where defense attorneys were worried that juries would be quick to accept "scientific evidence" as hard proof because of CSI.

The OJ jurors would be just as stupid now as they were back then.

OJ Simpson wasn't acquitted because the jurors thought he was innocent.

tonight was an all time low in stupidity
running finger prints. the scanner scans them and they get a hit within 2 seconds
same with a DNA test they run, granted on the DNA they were running a female sample in a database of mostly males, so I suppose they could set the search to only check the female samples in the database and speed things up, but that's still way too fast
no wonder cops and DAs hate these shows

oh yeah, somehow the stitching on a guy's jeans left an imprint on a bumper

I always find the fingerprint matching pretty unrealistic. I love the computer software program that they run, and then most of the time the resulting finger print shows a 4 point match. From what I've read this would not be considered a match for a real court case.

I've always thought the same.

As the article suggests, I think CSI has a neutral effect. It may be helpful to prosecuters in some instances and it may be helpful to defendants in others.

Most jurors vote on emotion.. You give them a fancy technology that somewhat gives them a little proof and they will convict anyone.

If David Kelley couldn't harm our legal system, I don't see what harm CSI can do.

Now I do think Law & Order has made things tougher on detectives.

Yes, I see baloney journalism as more of a threat. People tend to believe whatever they read.

In a way, I can see the validity in this obviously sensationalistic argument by virtue of the fact that the American public is an easily swayed flock of sheep. But BDLU said it best when he said that juries vote on their own emotion. After the Scott Peterson trial, multiple jurors claimed that they recommended the death penalty because "he didn't show any emotion." Not saying he's not guilty or deserving or whatever, but if that's not ridiculous, I don't know what is. My faith in our legal system is almost beyond repair now.