The “CSI Effect” is a theory that people who watch crime television begin to internalize what they see on the show, and expect similar outcomes in real life forensics. This “effect” is usually targeted towards jury members, who seem to expect conclusive evidence in the courtroom, just like they see on TV. For prosecutors, this effect can damage their whole case. If the jury is impacted by this effect, they may expect the prosecutor to come up with a lot of incriminating evidence, especially popular evidence, like DNA and fingerprints. According to the CSI Effect, without these definitive traces of evidence, a juror is less likely to convict someone, making the prosecutor’s job a lot harder. Prosecutors are not the only people affected, however. …show more content…
This can leave them feeling exhausted, overwhelmed and hounded when doing their jobs. (Huey, 2010.) Moving on, scientists in the field can also be impacted by the CSI Effect. It has been said that the CSI Effect has lead jurors to expect direct conclusive results from a forensic analyst. When a scientist, for example, takes to the stand, and testifies that blood sample is definitive as O+, a jury may not be happy with this answer. Instead, this effect leads the jury to expect a scientists to directly match each piece of evidence to a suspect with a guarantee, which is not what scientists do. This creates a huge amount of pressure on a scientist, and can leave them feeling an occupational strain as well, feeling like their expertise is undermined. It can also be dangerous, because it can push a forensic scientist to exaggerate findings, in order to gain a conviction. (McGarth, 2011). Overall in the criminal justice field, the CSI Effect has led some controversy into the courtrooms. While there is not enough evidence to state it effectively influences most jury, it has had a small increase in expectation for those who work in the criminal justice