The Secret Side of True Crime

The true crime genre, whether in books, television shows, movies, or podcasts, has become increasingly popular, with an average of 3.8 hours per week consuming content using a diverse range of media, most notably Netflix, YouTube, and Spotify. Unsurprisingly, the impacts of true crime have raised many discussions and debates regarding their dramatization of the criminal justice system and impractical presumption of forensic science. Controversies surrounding the true crime genre’s repercussions on society resulted in the theory of a phenomenon known as the CSI Effect, deriving from the infamous television show Crime Scene Investigation, airing from 2000 to 2015 with over 63 million views as the most-watched show in the world.

In accordance with the CSI effect, viewers of these crime shows frequently have unattainable expectations concerning forensic science and its capabilities, contending that every investigation will have a surplus of tangible evidence, that forensic analysis can provide unambiguous and irrefutable results, and that every case of criminality are eligible to be resolved through technologically advanced forensic approaches. The following theories are a few examples of the potential circumstances that may occur due to ramifications of the CSI effect:

The Strong Prosecutor’s Effect implies that regular viewers of forms of media under the true crime genre assume that forensic science is ubiquitous, accurate, and executed with unparalleled procedural sophistication. Consequently, when these individuals become jurors, they may possess unrealistic expectations about the forensic evidence presented. Proponents of the Strong Prosecutor's impact argue that shows including Crime Scene Investigation increases the obligation of corroboration on the prosecution, resulting in false acquittals.

The Weak Prosecutor’s Effect indicates that prosecutors believe that jurors expect sophisticated forensic science that a juror with the Strong Prosecutor’s Effect would anticipate and engage in a host of remedial measures due to this expectation. For instance, prosecutors may attempt to exclude jurors who watch shows similar to Crime Scene Investigation, assuming that they are affected by the Strong Prosecutor’s Effect in an attempt to avoid misjudgment.

The Defendant’s Effect ensues with defense lawyers arguing that shows like Crime Scene Investigation's positive light on forensic science lead to jurors interpreting evidence in a highly persuasive way and that the juror’s perception of the trial process has changed due to the show’s focus on the investigation.

The Police Chief’s Version claims criminals learn to evade detection by watching shows like Crime Scene Investigation, observing the methods and techniques of the show’s criminals, and attaining the knowledge of where they fall short, leading to their undoing. While the Police Chief’s Version does not pose a legal issue, it may significantly impact criminal justice systems.

Evoking the notion that forensic science is appealing and attractive, the Producer’s Effect alleges that shows similar to Crime Scene Investigation have had an educational effect by popularizing forensic science. Similarly, the Educator’s Effect suggests that Crime Scene Investigation informs young audiences as they decide to enter into careers in forensic science.

However, the CSI Effect has been said to be misleading, as some contend that television shows' impact on juries is not restricted to crime dramas, claiming that jurors have consistently brought their own prejudicial views and preconceptions to the courtroom and insist that jurors are aware that television dramas are fictitious and do not correctly depict the complexities of authentic criminal proceedings.

Furthermore, research on the CSI Effect has shown conflicting results, as some studies conclude that the effect is minor or inconsistent, while others claim that it has a considerable impact on jury expectations and decision-making, such as a study by the American Bar Association surveying over 1,000 potential jurors, which found that those who regularly watched crime dramas had higher expectations of forensic evidence in real-life cases.

Ultimately, the true crime genre and its association with the CSI Effect have undeniably sparked debates and discussions within the realm of criminal justice, shedding light on the potential consequences of consuming true crime media. While some argue that the CSI Effect is a myth and that jurors bring their own biases to the courtroom, research has presented conflicting findings. As the allure of true crime continues to captivate audiences, it remains crucial to critically examine its influence on our perception of the criminal justice system and the role of forensic science in solving crimes.