jim turner, the open university
DESCRIPTION
Jim Turner, The Open University Exploring the CSI Effect: What do potential jurors think they know about forensic evidence? ICCCR ‘Constructions of Evidence’ conference, July 2011. What is the ‘ CSI Effect’?. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Jim Turner, The Open University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081516/568139fc550346895da1c1fa/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Jim Turner, The Open University
Exploring the CSI Effect: What do potential jurors think they know about forensic evidence?
ICCCR ‘Constructions of Evidence’ conference, July 2011
![Page 2: Jim Turner, The Open University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081516/568139fc550346895da1c1fa/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
What is the ‘CSI Effect’?
‘The General Public’ (i.e. everyone) has a certain expectation of forensic science, shaped by media representations of forensic science – particularly fictional ones – and this may affect jury verdicts.
‘The notion of the CSI Effect probably originated with prosecutors’ (Cole & Dioso-Villa, 2007), but was initially a supposedly positive effect as CSI was seen as pro-prosecution (unlike other pro-defence programmes, e.g. Perry Mason).
It very quickly became seen as a negative (for prosecutors) as ‘the show made prosecutors’ jobs more difficult by whetting jurors’ appetites for convincing … forensic evidence’ (Cole & Dioso-Villa).
This was picked up by the media – Cole & Dioso-Villa report 416 news pieces on the CSI Effect between 2002 and 2007 alone – and became the CSI Effect as we now know it.
![Page 3: Jim Turner, The Open University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081516/568139fc550346895da1c1fa/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Raw evidence Zoomed in evidence
Visual example of real ‘enhanced’ evidence
![Page 4: Jim Turner, The Open University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081516/568139fc550346895da1c1fa/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
This is what jurors get This is what jurors expect
Visual example of unreal ‘enhanced’ evidence
• Kruse, 2010: CSI discourse as ‘truth’ and ‘wishful thinking’ about certainty in uncertain situations (i.e. criminal cases).
![Page 5: Jim Turner, The Open University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081516/568139fc550346895da1c1fa/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Implications of the ‘CSI Effect’?
‘Many prosecutors, judges and journalists have claimed that watching television programs such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation has caused jurors to wrongfully acquit guilty defendants when the prosecution presents no scientific evidence in support of the case.’ (Shelton, Kim & Barak, 2006).
‘…theoretically just as probable that the effect could both raise and lower the bar in terms of jurors’ likelihood to acquit’ (Shelton, Kim & Barak, 2006).
• Podlas, 2006: ‘… if CSI contributes to the pop cultural landscape that shapes perceptions of the legal process or if it impacts juror decision-making, “The CSI Effect” merits serious investigation.’
![Page 6: Jim Turner, The Open University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081516/568139fc550346895da1c1fa/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
• Is there really a CSI effect?
• A few studies seem to show an over-expectation of forensic evidence
• Shelton, Kim & Barak, 2006: survey-based – jurors (real, awaiting cases, surveyed about expectations of evidence) expected forensic evidence to be presented and to be high–quality.
• Schweitzer & Saks, 2007: hypothetical evidence in marginal case: ‘Compared to non-CSI viewers, CSI viewers were more critical of the forensic evidence presented at trial, finding it less believable’ (NS).
• BUT Kim, Barak & Shelton, 2009: no effect on juror verdicts (real, awaiting cases, given hypothetical case): ‘alleged CSI Effect’.
Is there evidence for the CSI Effect?
• BUT this is all predicated on potential jurors having an unrealistic expectation of what ‘forensic science’ can do. Do they though?
![Page 7: Jim Turner, The Open University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081516/568139fc550346895da1c1fa/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
The present study
• Can ‘the general public’ differentiate between forensic science that is ‘real’ and that is ‘unreal’?
• With ‘real’ science, can they tell what is (relatively) error-free and what is ‘error-prone’?
• Does exposure to CSI-type programmes have an effect?
![Page 8: Jim Turner, The Open University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081516/568139fc550346895da1c1fa/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Survey design
• Online survey of ‘knowledge of forensic science’
• Presented descriptions of 33 potential ‘forensic science techniques’
• Respondents answered whether each was:
• ‘Reliable’
• ‘Unreliable’
• ‘Not possible’
• Briefing gave examples to clarify the response categories:
• ‘Reliable’ – measuring rainfall and temperature
• ‘Unreliable’ – meteorological weather forecasting
• ‘Impossible’ – weather forecasting with Tarot cards
• Also asked about jury eligibility, educational background, professional background…
• … and TV viewing habits (inc. police procedurals, science documentaries, news broadcasting, etc.)
![Page 9: Jim Turner, The Open University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081516/568139fc550346895da1c1fa/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Results 1: accuracy of expectations
• Overall, respondents got 15.47 items correct (sd 2.54) – chance would be 11
8.01
5.19
2.28
0
2
4
6
8
10
Reliable Unreliable Impossible
(chance = 3.66)
F2,328 = 385.40, p < .0005
![Page 10: Jim Turner, The Open University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081516/568139fc550346895da1c1fa/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Results 2: pattern of expectationsResponses to reliable techniques
0102030405060708090
100
Reliable Unreliable Impossible
Per
cen
tag
e
Responses to unreliable techniques
0102030405060708090
100
Reliable Unreliable Impossible
Per
cen
tag
e
Responses to impossible techniques
0102030405060708090
100
Reliable Unreliable Impossible
Per
cen
tag
e
![Page 11: Jim Turner, The Open University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081516/568139fc550346895da1c1fa/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Results 3: is there a CSI Effect…?
• These results could just be a general expectation that science ‘can do anything’, so was there any effect of watching police procedurals?
• Correlated general measure of watching police fiction with scores
• Correlation with total score was small, but significant (Spearman’s rho = -.163, n = 161, p = .039, two-tailed) and negative
• Broken down by type of technique:
• Reliable; rho = .029, n = 161, p = .646, two-tailed
• Unreliable: rho = -.112, n = 161, p = .071, two-tailed
• Impossible: rho = -.122, n = 161, p = .052, two-tailed
![Page 12: Jim Turner, The Open University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081516/568139fc550346895da1c1fa/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Summary
• Our respondents had unrealistic expectations of forensic science…
• In the direction of expecting too much of it…
• Particularly if they watch police procedurals a lot.
• So there is some evidence for a CSI effect.
![Page 13: Jim Turner, The Open University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081516/568139fc550346895da1c1fa/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
• Follow-up will be to investigate the relative weight given to different types of ‘evidence’, for example:
• Different types of forensic evidence
• Physical versus eyewitness
• Are there mediating factors, for example:
• Science education?
• Law education?
• Is it possible to protect against the CSI effect?
• Jury selection?
• Judge’s instructions / warnings?
• Expert evidence?
Next steps and practical implications
![Page 14: Jim Turner, The Open University](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081516/568139fc550346895da1c1fa/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Contact details
http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/psychology/cogpsypanel/