Television shows have a way of bringing dissimilar people together.
In recent years, this trend has befallen of one of my personal favorites, “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation,” with rather unpleasant consequences.
Prosecutors, defense attorneys, Taylor Swift fans and “Beliebers” alike have all been uniting to build a case against “CSI.” Their respective accusations vary but share a common theme: discontent.
This column examines the “CSI effect” in terms of both pop culture and the justice system.
Even if you’ve never watched the Las Vegas-based crime drama, a passing glance at current headlines and viral videos reveals what’s provoked the ire of teenyboppers nationwide.
The show tends to guest-star young music idols, then violently snuff their characters within an episode or two.
Recent award ceremony snubs, fictitious fatal stabbings and shootouts add injury to insult for the worshippers of T-Swift and J. Bieb. They don’t react kindly — just ask Kanye West and Esperanza Spalding.
But long before director Jerry Bruckheimer and Co. were killing off overrated pop singers to the dismay of legions of fans, legal experts were voicing their own grievances with “CSI.”
The most vocal criticism comes from prosecutors, who claim these high-tech dramas heighten juries’ evidence expectations, intensify the burden of proof and make it more difficult to get convictions.
From their perspective, television’s depiction of forensics as an exact science raises the real-world acquittal rate, with juries demanding more conclusive, as-seen-on-TV data before they commit to a guilty verdict.
The same lawyers also often equate modern “whodunit” mysteries with instructional videos for criminals, providing a detailed behind-the-scenes look at forensic techniques and limitations.
But many attorneys retort the “CSI effect” also impacts the defensive side of the courtroom with the opposite result: more unlawful convictions.
Detective shows routinely identify the guilty party with damning DNA evidence, while statistics of real crimes illustrate a drastically different role of genetics in police work.
Nationwide initiatives like the Innocence Project, which works to exonerate people serving unjust life sentences, actually incorporate biological evidence to clear its clients’ names.
DNA is only present in 5 to 10 percent of crime scenes, according to the organization’s website. It also cites faulty forensics as the second-highest cause of wrongful convictions.
Let’s recap: Prosecutors blame crime show-caliber standards for increasing acquittals, while their defensive counterparts say real forensic science lands many innocent people in prison.
Enter Donald Shelton, a chief judge and legal professor from Michigan. He conducted his own study on crime shows’ influence on trial proceedings and published his findings in the National Institute of Justice Journal. In his two-year project, Shelton surveyed 1,000 prospective jurors about their familiarity with legal dramas and attitudes about evidence and convictions.
His ruling?
The “CSI effect” is more like a myth. Pre-trial impressions between crime show fans and non-viewers were distinguishable, but “differences in expectations about evidence did not translate into important differences in the willingness to convict,” Shelton wrote.
Whether fact or fiction, ramifications of this rumored cultural phenomenon persist. NPR recently reported that several states now permit lawyers to eliminate jurors and witnesses during voir dire based on their TV habits.
As a mass communication major — and professed “CSI” junkie — I side with Shelton’s conclusions. They correlate with the “limited effects” theory, which says media influence an audience’s biases much less than a lifetime of experiences and socioeconomic factors.
I’d hope sound-minded adults can differentiate between entertainment and reality, but the blurring of the two spheres is a valid concern.
To the creative masterminds behind “CSI,” I offer my full-fledged support, yearbook-style — You rock. Don’t ever change.
But may I suggest you work Miley Cyrus into the script somehow?
I rest my case.
 
Kelly Hotard is a 19-year-old mass communication junior from Picayune, Miss. Follow her on Twitter @TDR_khotard.
 
 
 
____
contact Kelly Hotard at [email protected]