Solved by verified expert:For this assignment, please read from page 85 “(“The CSI effect defined”) to page 94 (up to the section entitled “Method”) in the attached pdf.Then answer the following questions:1. In the first section (“The CSI effect defined”), do the authors ever give you their opinion on the CSI effect? How do they support their definition and their expansion on the definition? How many different sources do they cite in this section?2. From pages 86-88, the authors discuss lawyers, police officers, judges, and community members. In this section, do the authors ever give you their opinion on any of the issues discussed?3. Examine the section entitled “Verdicts” (pp. 90-92). How do the results from the study by Shelton et al. differ from the results of the study by Kim, Barak, and Shelton? How do the results of the study by Baskin and Sommers differ from the results of other studies?4. As a result of having read this article, please write a few sentences about what you might have learned about a) synthesizing sources or b) the CSI effect.Thanks
beyond_frequency.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Beyond Frequency: Perceived Realism
and the CSI Effect
Evelyn M. Maeder* and Richard Corbett
Carleton University
Bien que policiers, avocats, juges, voire certains membres de la communauté,
croient que les émissions télévisées de type CSI ont eu un impact important sur
le système de justice pénale (impact nommé « l’effet CSI »), des recherches
empiriques n’ont pas démontré de lien entre l’écoute d’émissions policières et les
verdicts. La littérature a néanmoins établi que de hauts taux d’écoute d’émissions policières sont liés à de plus grandes attentes concernant les preuves,
différentes attitudes face aux types de preuves et différents niveaux (rapportés
par les personnes elles-mêmes) de compréhension des preuves scientifiques.
Cette étude tente d’élargir notre compréhension de l’influence de ce type
d’émissions sur les attitudes, les attentes et les verdicts en examinant l’influence
du réalisme apparent (c.-à-d. le degré auquel les émissions de télévision sont
perçues comme étant des représentations réalistes et exactes du domaine
dépeint) dans ce contexte, étant donné que certaines études ont identifié le
réalisme apparent comme étant un modérateur des effets de la télévision sur les
attitudes. Les participants durent jouer le rôle de faux jurés et lire la transcription d’un procès où la Couronne présentait des preuves génétiques. Les
participants devaient aussi indiquer la fréquence à laquelle ils regardaient des
émissions policières (fréquence) ainsi que le taux de réalisme dont ils croyaient
que ces émissions faisaient preuve (réalisme apparent). Les résultats ont révélé
plusieurs effets intéressants directs et indirects tant de la fréquence d’écoute que
du réalisme apparent sur le traitement des renseignements, les attitudes et les
prises de décision du faux juré. Ceci semble indiquer que, afin de bien
comprendre l’effet que les émissions policières peuvent avoir sur des jurés
potentiels, la fréquence d’écoute et le taux de réalisme apparent doivent être pris
en compte.
Mots clés : prise de décision du jury, l’effet CSI, perceptions des preuves médico-légales,
perceptions des témoignages, réalisme apparent
Although police, lawyers, judges, and even some community members believe
that CSI-type shows have seriously affected the criminal justice system (termed
the CSI effect), empirical research has not demonstrated a link between crime
television viewing and verdicts. However, the literature has established that
* Please address correspondence to Evelyn M. Maeder, Institute of Criminology and
Criminal Justice, C 566 Loeb, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON,
K1S 5B6; e-mail evelyn_maeder@carleton.ca
© 2015 CJCCJ / RCCJP doi:10.3138/cjccj.2013.E44
84
Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale
janvier 2015
higher frequencies of crime television viewing are associated with increased
expectations of evidence, different attitudes toward evidence types, and varying
self-reported levels of understanding of scientific evidence. The present study
sought to extend our understanding of the influence of crime television on
attitudes, expectations, and verdicts by examining the influence of perceived
realism (i.e., the degree to which television programs are viewed as accurate and
realistic depictions of the field that they portray) in this context, since some
research has identified perceived realism as a moderator of the effects of television
on attitudes. Participants were asked to play the role of mock jurors and read a
trial transcript in which the Crown presented DNA evidence. Participants also
indicated the frequency with which they watched crime television programs
(frequency), as well as the degree to which they felt these programs were
accurate and realistic depictions of the criminal justice system (perceived
realism). Results revealed a number of interesting direct and indirect effects of
both frequency of viewing and perceived realism on mock juror information
processing, attitudes, and decision making, suggesting that in order to truly
understand the effect that crime television may have on potential jurors, their
frequency of watching must be considered in combination with the degree to
which they perceive these programs as realistic depictions of the justice system.
Keywords: jury decision making, CSI effect, perceptions of forensic evidence,
perceptions of eyewitness testimony, perceived realism
With an ever-increasing number of crime television programs in which
forensic tests are used to solve a case in the course of a single episode,
many criminal justice officials have begun to worry that the public may
believe that forensic evidence is easy to obtain, quick to test, and free of
potential flaws. These misperceptions would have their largest impact in
the criminal courtroom, where members of the public serve as jurors, and
thus, mistaken beliefs about availability, efficiency, and efficacy of
forensic evidence could result in flawed verdict decisions.
The CSI effect refers to the perception commonly held by lawyers, judges,
police officers, and even the general public that, due to the apparent
availability of forensic evidence on crime television shows such as CSI,
jurors may be either unwilling to convict in the absence of such evidence
or overly reliant on it when it is presented (e.g., Heinrick 2006; Lawson
2009). Thus far, most research has failed to establish a link between
watching crime television and verdict decisions in simulated criminal
trials. Specifically, most studies have not revealed an effect of mock
jurors’ crime television consumption frequency on the willingness to
convict in the presence or absence of forensic evidence. The present
Beyond Frequency: Perceived Realism and the CSI Effect
85
study sought to examine the effect of perceived realism (i.e., the degree to
which an individual perceives the show to be realistic) of these programs, with the assumption that, even among those who watch crime
television frequently, there may be important differences between individuals who believe that the television shows are realistic and accurate
and those who do not. Specifically, we were interested in whether a CSI
effect may result for those who find these shows to be accurate depictions
of the criminal justice system, as opposed to for those who watch them
purely for entertainment purposes, with an understanding of their
unrealistic nature. Given the literature that suggests that perceived
realism may influence the effect of television on attitudes (e.g., Busselle
2001; Taylor 2005), we sought to examine whether attitudes toward
evidence and verdicts would vary as a function of the perceived realism
of crime television.
We hypothesized that frequency of crime television consumption would
be unrelated to major trial decisions, given that most studies have found
no relationship between frequency of watching crime television and
verdict decisions (e.g., Holmgren and Fordham 2011; Shelton, Kim, and
Barak 2006), or at best have found an indirect relationship via perceptions of circumstantial evidence (Kim, Barak, and Shelton 2009). However, we suspected that those who believe that crime television shows
offer a realistic depiction of the criminal justice system would be more
likely to convict in a case involving DNA evidence, more likely to have
positive attitudes toward DNA evidence, and more likely to perceive the
DNA evidence as influential on their decision.
The CSI effect defined
As described by Kruse (2010), a typical episode of CSI begins with the
discovery of a dead body, often a victim of murder, and finishes with the
confession and arrest of a suspect. The central focus of the CSI series is on
forensic science, as opposed to other aspects of the criminal justice
system. This television series also suggests that forensic evidence is the
only valid authority in criminal investigations (Kruse 2010), while
witness testimonies are deemed unreliable and are not considered
credible sources of evidence (Mann 2005). The science depicted in CSI
is idealized and provides a definite, unquestioned resolution to every
case (Kruse 2010). Ley, Jankowski, and Brewer (2012: 62) argue that CSI
portrays DNA testing as “common, swift, reliable, and instrumental in
solving cases.” These misleading depictions have led some to believe
that the overemphasis on forensic evidence and the portrayal of the
86
Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice
January 2015
limitless availability of such evidence in CSI have the potential to distort
a juror’s perception of reality.
Specifically, the CSI effect hypothesizes that, as a result of unrealistic
depictions of forensic evidence on crime television shows (such as CSI),
jurors may be overly influenced by forensic evidence in the courtroom,
leading to two distinct possibilities: 1) when no forensic evidence is
present, jurors will acquit, and 2) when forensic evidence is present,
jurors will convict, even if it is flawed or countered by other important
evidence (e.g., Heinrick 2006; Lawson 2009). The central perception is
that these crime television shows create unrealistic expectations in those
who watch them. In Canada, section 649 of the Criminal Code precludes
jurors from speaking about their experiences during trials, and so we are
unable to directly test whether a CSI effect exists by questioning jurors
about their expectations and the potential influence of crime television
post-trial. However, a great deal of survey and experimental research
has tested for a CSI effect among a number of different groups.
The CSI effect: Perceptions within and outside of the criminal
justice system
According to Houck (2006), the media first began to report about a CSI
effect in 2003, mostly on the basis of anecdotes from police officers and
prosecutors. Since then, perceptions of this effect have been found to be
pervasive among those involved in the criminal justice system.
Lawyers
Heinrick (2006) argues that the CSI effect poses a threat to both prosecution and defence lawyers. If forensic evidence in not available, jurors
may deem other evidence as insufficient to render a guilty verdict,
resulting in an increase in acquittals. On the other hand, if DNA evidence
is available for the prosecution, jurors may be overly reliant on this
information and ignore relevant exonerating evidence. According to
Lawson (2009), prosecutors and defence lawyers are under the impression that the CSI series affects the ability of jurors to remain impartial at
every stage of the trial process. Cole and Dioso-Villa (2009) conducted a
review of surveys that focused on legal actors’ perceptions of a potential
CSI effect. The analysis revealed that prosecutors and defence lawyers
believe that juries are heavily influenced by CSI-type television
programs.
Beyond Frequency: Perceived Realism and the CSI Effect
87
The belief in a negative impact caused by CSI-type shows has also been
demonstrated through the study of 102 prosecutors by the Maricopa
County Attorney’s Office (2005) – 74% of the prosecutors indicated that
they had tried a case in which jurors expected scientific evidence, and
45% felt that jurors focused on forensic evidence to the point of ignoring
other types of evidence. Importantly, prosecutors reported suspicion
that jurors who watch crime television shows such as CSI may be overly
influential in jury deliberations due to a perception of expertise in 72% of
cases. As a result of these beliefs, lawyers have begun to change the way
they present cases (Houck 2006; Maricopa County 2005). Therefore, it is
clear that lawyers are concerned that jurors are influenced by CSI-type
shows.
Police officers
Police officers may share this concern. The results of a qualitative study
by Huey (2010) indicate that most police officers feel that they experience
the CSI effect through public queries about the conduct of investigations.
The study revealed that police officers are concerned that the inaccurate
depictions of police work in CSI-type shows have created a new
standard of judgement in the public eye that real life police work cannot
meet. According to the majority of officers interviewed, there is a
potential for public trust in the reliability of police forces to decrease
due to unrealistic expectations created by CSI-type shows. This decrease
in trust and reliance has been shown in the results of Stevens’s (2008)
study on the CSI effect and legal actors. It was found that police reports
and non-forensic evidence collected by the police have had a reduced
effect on guiding prosecution strategies in recent years. According to the
results, currently, lawyers are generally more concerned with presenting
forensic evidence as opposed to police testimony because they feel that
jurors will respond more favourably to forensic evidence. Finally,
research has shown that some police officers have changed the manner
in which they interact with the public in light of their perceptions of the
CSI effect (Stinson, Patry, and Smith 2007).
Judges
A small body of research suggests that judges are also very likely to
believe that the CSI effect has an influence on jurors’ decisions. A poll
taken at a conference of Louisiana judges (Toobin 2007) found that every
judge at the conference believed CSI has had major impacts on the trial
process. Judges, like prosecutors and police, believe that the CSI effect
88
Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale
janvier 2015
has led to an increasing number of wrongful acquittals of defendants on
the grounds of insufficient forensic evidence (Shelton, Kim, and Barak
2006). Specifically, Hughes and Magers (2007) conducted a survey of 58
circuit court judges and found that 58.1% of judges responded agree or
strongly agree to an item indicating that CSI-type television shows have
had an impact on the administration of justice in their courtrooms. Fewer
judges (53.4%) indicated that CSI-type shows have made it harder to
convict defendants in their court, but three-quarters (75.7%) strongly
agreed or agreed that CSI-type programs have increased jurors’ expectations for forensic evidence. A year later, Robbers (2008) surveyed 89
judges and reported that 61% of judges felt that CSI-type shows had led
to unreasonable expectations surrounding forensic evidence and only 1
judge indicated that the CSI effect is exaggerated.
Community members
One study has attempted to determine whether the community at large
is concerned about the existence of a CSI effect. Hayes and Levett (2013)
surveyed community participants with regard to their crime television
watching habits and asked them whether they had heard of the CSI
effect. Overall, participants in this study were not aware of the effect
(70% indicated that they had never heard of it), although, when provided
with a definition, they tended to agree that it did exist and represented an
unrealistic expectation of evidence. Notably, those individuals who
were heavier consumers of crime television were more likely to have
heard of the CSI effect and were more likely to report that shows such as
CSI help to educate the public about investigative and evidentiary
procedures.
Therefore, it is apparent that – at least for lawyers, judges, and the police,
and even for some members of the general public – the so-called CSI
effect is a source of concern that, as an effect of crime television, trials are
not being adjudicated objectively by jurors. The next section will discuss
whether empirical research supports this concern.
The CSI effect: Empirical research
Several studies have attempted to determine the relationship between
crime television viewing and decision making in cases with and without
forensic physical evidence in order to establish the existence of the CSI
effect. Much of this research supports the notion that jurors may have
differing expectations as a result of watching CSI-type shows; however,
Beyond Frequency: Perceived Realism and the CSI Effect
89
most of this research was unable to confirm a direct link between crime
television and verdict outcomes.
Expectations for evidence
Numerous studies that have assessed mock jurors’ expectations of
evidence have found that increased viewing of CSI and related shows
is positively correlated with expectations for the presentation of scientific evidence during trials (Brewer and Ley 2010; Shelton et al. 2006;
Smith, Patry, and Stinson 2007). Shelton et al. (2006) assessed evidence
expectations of potential jurors in seven different case types. Findings
suggested that participants generally had high expectations with
respect to scientific evidence (including DNA, fingerprint, and ballistic
evidence), irrespective of CSI viewing frequency. In addition, the
specific comparison of CSI viewers to non-CSI viewers also revealed
that frequent CSI watchers had consistently higher expectations with
reference to each type of evidence – including non-scientific evidence,
such as victim or witness testimony – compared to non-CSI watchers.
These results were replicated in a later study by Shelton, Barak, and
Kim (2009).
In a content analysis of the first two seasons of CSI and CSI: Miami,
conducted by Patry, Stinson, and Smith (2008), the two most often
portrayed types of evidence were DNA (shown in 18.9% of episodes)
and fingerprint evidence (shown in 12% of episodes). Therefore, it is not
surprising that those who watch these shows may believe that this
evidence is readily available.
Knowledge about forensic evidence
Schweitzer and Saks (2007) studied self-perceptions of knowledge
regarding forensic evidence as a function of watching crime television
in a group of 48 student mock jurors. Participants indicated how much
they watched forensic-science-based shows (e.g., CSI) or general-crimebased shows (e.g., Law and Order). For both types of shows, those with
increased viewing habits indicated that they had a better understanding
of the tasks performed by forensic scientists. Those who watched more
forensic-science-based shows were also more sceptical of the scientific
evidence presented in a mock trial; this was not true for those who
watched general-crime-based shows. Similarly, Brewer and Ley (2010)
reported that participants who watched more crime television rated
themselves as having a better understanding of DNA evidence.
90
Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice
January 2015
Perceptions of forensic evidence
Smith et al. (2007) found that watching crime television was significantly
associated with higher reliability and accuracy ratings of DNA evidence
(and marginally associated with these ratings of ballistics evidence).
Similarly, Brewer and Ley (2010) found that participants who watched
more crime television reported higher reliability ratings for DNA evidence. However, a study by Lieberman, Carrell, Miethe, and Krauss
(2008) found that perceptions of DNA evidence did not vary as a
function of crime-television consumption frequency.
Verdicts
Empirical literature that has specifically studied the verdict outcomes of
frequent CSI viewers has generally found limited or no support for the
CSI effect on the juror decision-making process (Brewer and Ley 2010;
Podlas 2006). Shelton et al. (2006) assessed the potential for the increased
evidence expectations of CSI viewers to translate into verdict decisions.
The results of the study found no significant difference between the
verdict outcomes for CSI viewers and those for non-viewers. Therefore,
the higher expectations with respect to scientific evidence reported by
CSI viewers did not affect the juror decision-making process in terms of
verdict decisions. These results were replicated in another study, conducted by Kim, Barak, and Shelto …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
