ALT-16 Nonprofit Service Sector
There are major differences between the actual criminal justice system and the criminal justice system portrayed on television. This is especially evident in shows such as the CSI (Crime Scene Investigation) and the Law & Order series.
Television crime shows do not always accurately portray aspects of the criminal justice system. This is true especially regarding the courtroom and crime labs. For example, crime on television is fast paced in order to keep viewer's attention. However, in real life, solving crimes can be slow and meticulous. Another difference is that on television, all crimes are solved in the time-block it is allotted, like on the CSI series. In reality many crimes go unsolved and instead of the focus being on one case, many cases are worked on at a time.
By comparing the criminal justice system on television to real life, it is evident that many aspects are left out. The reason is because legal accuracy can slow down the pace of an otherwise exciting program. One writer stated; "our whole show has to come to a dead stop every week while the cop politely reads the crook his rights" (Carlson, 34). Crime shows are unrealistic because most demonstrate the process of criminal investigation and end with the arrest of the suspect. When everything else in between is disregarded. Arraignments, pretrial hearings, jury selection, plea bargaining, trials (they are shown on television, but they tend to be much quicker than in reality), sentencing, and other post arrest procedures are rarely ever shown. Another interesting difference between television and reality is in regards to the defendant. When shown at trial on television, many times the defendant may break down and admit to the criminal act, however, based on research, in real life defendants do not crack and confess to the crime. This especially hold true at murder trials and research concludes that hardened criminals know how to perform under pressure. The reality is that most trials do not end in courtroom confessions; however this takes a backseat to creating dramatic effect on television.
The responsibilities of certain occupations are also skewed on television crime shows. On television shows, especially CSI, many times the characters take on both roles. For example, on television, the line is blurred between the jobs of detectives and crime scene investigators. The same goes for crime scene investigators and forensic scientists. Crime-scene investigators work primarily at the crime scene and forensic scientists work primarily in the lab. Television crime shows also glamorize the jobs of different occupations, such as police officers and attorneys. Television leaves out that both police officers and attorneys spend a bulk of their time in the office and writing reports, not just on the scene and in the courtroom. Once again, it makes for better and more exciting television to show police officers making arrests instead of writing reports and showing attorneys in action at trial, rather then pouring over legal cases and documents.
The impact of CSI on people's perceptions of the justice system has even coined its own name. "The CSI Effect" has placed a burden on prosecutors. The "CSI Effect" is affecting the way lawyers prepare their cases, as well as the expectations that the public has of what criminal science is able to provide. Former prosecutor Wendy Murphy stated that "The CSI Effect" is real, and an impediment: When 'CSI' trumps common sense, then you have a systemic problem. The National District Attorneys Association is deeply concerned about the effect of CSI.'"On television it's always accurate evidence and quick convictions. The problem arises when jurors expect the same thing to occur at real life trials, where there is more at stake. Sometimes jurors who are fans of the popular television franchise have a difficult time believing that in certain instances, investigators do not find DNA evidence at a crime scene. Jurors start to expect a lot of forensic evidence and as a result, this hinders the process of determining a verdict. Many prosecutors state that jurors believed that one missing piece would have told them the truth. However, this is not reality.
A major recent case in which the "CSI Effect" played a role in the jury's verdict is the trial of actor Robert Blake. The jury for the trial acquitted Blake of murder in the shooting death of his wife and of the charge of trying to get someone to kill her. For prosecutor Shellie Samuels, it was her first loss in fifty murder cases. Even though Samuels presented more than seventy witnesses that were against Blake, the fact that she could not show the jury blood evidence or provide conclusive gun-shot residue, caused the jury to deem Blake not guilty in killing his wife. This is not the only case that the "CSI Effect" has impacted juries' decisions on determining the verdict of cases, especially murder cases.
Some prosecutors believe that one solution is to be more careful during jury selection. This means paying closer attention to the people who are enthralled by television's depiction of forensic evidence. Murphy states; "I actually think one of the problems is we're not screening out these jurors who are way too much under the influence of these pop culture programs. They shouldn't be allowed to sit in judgment, frankly."
That is why, many times, potential jurors can find themselves being asked whether they are viewers of shows such as CSI. I actually witnessed an example of this firsthand. At my past internship at the Albany County District Attorneys Office, I sat in on a murder trial at the courthouse. Prior to the start of the trial, the presiding judge warned everyone in the courtroom that "this is not a Law & Order trial". What the judge meant was that this real life trial was going to be much different, less glamorous, and much longer than the trials that occur on the popular television show (the original Law & Order and its two spin-offs: Special Victims Unite and Criminal Intent).
Another opinion about the negative impact of the "CSI Effect" is that these television programs educate actual criminals on how to commit a crime and get away with it by showing them how to not leave behind any evidence and prevent the crime from being traced back to them.
While many people in the legal profession are against the "CSI Effect" others take the opposing side. Some prosecutors believe that the crime programs actually are beneficial because they educate people more. They feel that people are better at understanding the use and importance of scientific evidence. They believe that the television programs have raised the public's awareness of certain aspects, such as how the justice system operates and how evidence is obtained. Some believe that people are intelligent enough to recognize the difference between what is reality and what is not, therefore, concluding that these programs will not affect their decisions when determining verdicts.
Crime and the criminal justice system on television and in reality may appear the same, but in fact are very different from one another. On television the purpose is to entertain the viewers in order to keep them watching and engaged in the program, not to provide accuracy. Accuracy can be less entertaining and boring; therefore it is left to real life. If you have the choice of watching a trial where the defendant breaks down and confesses after DNA evidence is clearly linked to them or jury selection and an attorney sitting at their desk reading document after document, it can be assumed that the majority of people would pick the first choice. It may not be accurate, but it makes for better television.
