Debunking the "CSI Effect"

Several weeks ago, Eve mentioned the purported “CSI Effect,” the idea that watching CSI and similar shows was leading jurors to have unrealistically high expectations about forensic evidence in trials. As it turns out, as part of my day job as a pollster, I carried out a study on this phenomenon some time ago, so Eve asked me if I could write up the results for Best Evidence readers. — Dan Cassino

Starting in the early 2000s, prosecutors became concerned that the popularity of programs like CSI were leading viewers — and potential jurors — to have unrealistic expectations about the quality and quantity of forensic evidence in trials. If people are trained to think that the police use DNA and hair follicle evidence (to say nothing of, let’s say, “questionable” techniques like blood splatter and dental evidence) on run-of-the-mill cases, they may wonder why the prosecutors in a case before them aren’t using it.

But figuring out whether it’s the TV shows that are actually driving the difference between viewers and non-viewers is tricky. After all, people aren’t being forced, Clockwork Orange style, to watch these shows — they’re opting into them, and the same factors that lead them to opt into a show are likely to lead them to have different views of the criminal justice system.