Much has been written about the so-called CSI effect on juries. Wikipedia defines the CSI effect as:
any of several ways in which the exaggerated portrayal of forensic science on crime television shows such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation influences public perception. The term most often refers to the belief that jurors have come to demand more forensic evidence in criminal trials, thereby raising the effective standard of proof for prosecutors.
But recently Slate Magazine had an article casting the CSI effect in a different light:
How could forensic evidence, widely seen as factual and unbiased, nearly
send an innocent person to his death? The answer is profoundly
disturbing—and suggests that for every Earl Washington freed, untold
more are sent to their deaths. Far from an infallible science, forensics
is a decades-long experiment in which undertrained lab workers jettison
the scientific method in favor of speedy results that fit prosecutors’
hunches. No one knows exactly how many people have been wrongly
imprisoned—or executed—due to flawed forensics.
Anyone interested in how shows like CSI might influence jury trials in America should read
the rest of this article.
