Do criminal TV shows show reality in the way it is, or do they affect the judges,

detectives, and criminals themselves? A new phenomenon called CSI Effect appeared sometime
in the 2000s to describe what impact these shows can have on the public (6). CSI effect refers to
how criminal television shows (e.g., Criminal Minds, Sherlock, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation,
etc.) affect illegal activity and how jurors evaluate real-life cases (2). CSI Effect is commonly
used to show how forensic drama shows change the way people perceive the actual trial process.
People may want to feel like they are playing the main character; therefore, they may be biased
in the courtroom and try to convict someone of a crime they haven’t even committed. Nowadays,
people have higher expectations from the police to find criminals as they know how easy that
process is on the screen. They see how the crimes are solved within a 40-minute episode;
therefore, they may believe it should take the same amount of time in real life. However, as the
FBI reported, the homicide clearance rate dropped from 91% to 63% in 1963, which shows that
no matter the advanced technologies that the public sees on the shows, it is still challenging to
identify a criminal (2).
There are many myths about crime scene investigation, the amount of evidence that is
found on the crime scene, and different analytical methods (2). All of these myths and made-up
stories negatively affect the way the public sees the CSI process. Around 40% of the details and
forensic science methods people see on the internet are not even real and cannot be used in the
real world (1). The public tends to believe what they see on the screen. Therefore, their
perceptions change after watching how easily all the crimes and homicides are solved by the
detectives and police forces in TV shows. Later, they expect the same from the real people; they
do not understand how different real crime scenes are compared to the ones we see on the screen.
Not each crime scene will have fingerprint, DNA evidence, witnesses, and each case is unique
and requires a specific method to solve it. Therefore, society has high expectations; they believe
that every case can be solved in a few days. These high expectations cannot be met as there is a
human mistake and not everything is as easy as we want it to be.
Many research studies have been conducted to see how much the CSI Effects has on the
jurors. For instance, in the summer of 2006, 1027 jurors were surveyed to find out whether there
was a connection between the programs they watched, how often, and what they expected to see
in the actual courtroom. The research has shown that 46% expected to see scientific evidence in
every case, 22% expected to find DNA evidence in every case, and 36% expected to see
fingerprints in each case (3). There are many other cases in which the CSI Effect can be seen.
For example, in Phoenix, Arizona, the bloody coat was introduced as the evidence in the
courtroom. However, the jurors noticed that it hadn’t been tested for DNA. The judge has
decided that the jurors have watched the DNA testing on the TV shows, but they never taught
where to use it as the DNA testing wasn’t needed as the defendant admitted that he was at the
crime scene (2).On the other hand, research strides show that the CSI Effect doesn’t influence the
courtroom. The study of Kim et al. (2009) demonstrated that there is no effect of the TV shows.
No matter how much the participants have watched, it did not affect their decision to convict
based on the eyewitness testimony only (4). These research studies show that it cannot be said
for 100% that the CSI effect is real and has a significantly negative impact in the courtroom. On
the other hand, it can be seen that it has a slight effect but not that statistically significant.
The CSI Effect has its influence not only on the public and legal system but also on the
criminals. Everyone has access to watch criminal dramas, and while most people are watching it
for entertainment, others may watch to study new methods and get information for future illegal
activities. The criminal programs may show new ways to get rid of the evidence of the dead body
and clear the fingerprints and footprints. Shows like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation show us not
only the murders but also what techniques are used in the laboratories to process the evidence.
Therefore, criminals can learn how to avoid giving some leads. As Captain RayPeavy, Los
Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, said, the criminal shows may have “educated potential
killers even more” (2). It can be seen that the CSI Effects have a negative impact on the criminals
as they learn by watching these shows and later apply them to real life.
The CSI: UTM episode 1 demonstrates what usually happens at the crime scene. The
episode shows what is actually seen in the TV shows and media, the way crime scene
investigators document and pick up the evidence. It also shows what techniques are used to
imprint the fingerprints using the black magnetic powder, how the footprints are measured, and
how the blood spatters are collected. The CSI: UTM episode can show the way the CSI Effect
affects people. For example, it can be seen in the video that the knife was picked up before a
picture for the documentation was taken. The public may believe that the process of collecting
the evidence is not that important, as, in the episode, the investigator picks up the evidence
without even taking pictures and notes about it. In the TV shows, they don’t usually show the

2
process of documentation. Therefore, the public may not understand how crucial that process is.
In reality, documentation and photographing are vital processes at the crime scene as they can be
used in the courtroom and be a critical factor in a case. The public won’t even know that as they
don’t see that on the screen and in TV shows, and the viewers will believe that anyone can pick
up any detail at the crime scene without photographing it first.However, the evidence should not
be touched with bare hands, only in gloves so that new fingerprints won’t be added to the surface
as it may complicate the identification process.
Another example of how the CSI: UTM episode promotes the CSI Effect is that the
police officers weren’t present at the scene to maintain security. The three-tiered response to the
emergency calls, which includes police, EMS, and fire departments, wasn’t present at the crime
scene investigation. Maintaining safety and security at the scene is one of the priorities. It creates
a comfortable environment for the first responder to respond to dangerous situations correctly
and logically. The CSI Effect may affect people who watch that episode as they think crime
scene preservation is not that important. It will leave an effect that everyone can enter and exit
the scene whenever they want. Without police officers, the media and journalists will have easier
access to the victims without security. However, the security of the scene is key as it not only
helps prevent interactions and disturbing but also helps to prevent altering the scene. In some
cases where the first aid is needed urgently, then the scene can be damaged and changed as the
preservation of the life of victims and anyone affected is way more crucial than preserving the
evidence. On the other hand, all evidence should be tried to be untouched as much as possible.
Each crime scene investigation is unique and needs a particular approach, however, some
procedures still need to be followed by everyone who’s involved with the case. If any procedures
and processes are not followed, it can affect the case’s rate and the criminals will be identified.
Another example of the CSI Effect can be when an investigator hasn’t noticed the
footprint and she could’ve stepped on it and damaged the evidence. The investigators have to be
extra careful at the crime scene and notice every detail so that the case won’t be negatively
affected. By damaging the evidence, the investigator would have affected the crime-solving
process, which may have impacted the courtroom and make the process more complicated. The
judge and jurors could’ve been biased and not convicting a suspect guilty or innocent as they
would think that they don’t have enough evidence. In addition, the jurors may believe that the
footprints need to be in the perfect state to identify a criminal. As it showed in the TV shows, the

3
footprints and fingerprints are always transparent and very detailed. However, in real life, the
footprints are not going to be very accurate, and even different techniques (e.g., 3D impression in
soil with dental stone) that are used to identify the imprint may not help. The CSI: UTM episode
1 shows how inaccurate TV shows and media demonstrations can negatively affect the way
people perceive forensic science, different methods, and techniques. The public may not
understand that everything on the screen is an exaggeration, and in the real world, not everything
is that easy, and all processes take a significant amount of time. By watching these processes on
the screen, people may underestimate the harsh reality of being a forensic investigator or a police
officer.
Nowadays, more and more criminalistic TV shows are created as people become more
interested in the genre. However, the majority of people don’t even understand the depth and the
difficulty of forensic science, its methods, and its techniques. The TV programs don’t even show
the half of the procedures and rules that should be followed by the investigators and police
officers at the crime scene. In addition, the process of collecting and documenting evidence is
never shown as it is in reality. Representing forensic science is appropriate as there is a whole
different genre for it and it’s one of the most popular genres. People watch for entertainment and
see a little how it feels to work in the police forces, what challenges the workers have to face to
find criminals. However, it should be noticed that everything people see on the TV is not 100%
true, and the viewers of the criminalistic shows need to understand that. The fans have to make
sure that they can differentiate the real world and the one we see on the screen. In addition, to
make sure that the viewers clearly understand not to mix the two worlds, the editors of the shows
should put a disclaimer at the beginning of each episode saying that everything they will be
seeing is inaccurate, mostly made up, doesn’t apply to reality, and done for entertaining reasons
only.
It can be seen that the CSI Effect is accurate and does affect people. However, it doesn’t
have an impact on everyone on the same level. Some people may be more easily convinced by
the TV shows, whereas others understand that everything on the screen is an exaggeration and
done for the perfect picture. It mainly depends on the person and whether they know the
difference between the real world and everything that happens in TV shows.

4
References Cited:
1. Ribeiro G, Tangen JM, McKimmie BM. Beliefs about error rates and human
judgment in forensic science. Forensic Science International 2019;297:138–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.034.
2. Durnal EW. Crime scene investigation (as seen on TV). Forensic Science
International 2010;199(1-3):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.02.015.
3. Shelton DE. The “CSI Effect”: Does it Really Exist?. papers.ssrn.com. 2008.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1163231&download=yes
(accessed November 12, 2021).
4. Elsevier Enhanced Reader. reader.elsevier.com. 2009.
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0047235209000889?token=89B05708F
82E93FE027056C55C0040F518D29D0B5C41B68672CEF81F37F18A24A721D
9076159617A2A6EBF31DAFCBDDF&originRegion=us-east-1&originCreation
=20211112001835 (accessed November 12, 2021).
5. Bergslien E. Teaching To Avoid the “CSI Effect”. Keeping the Science in
Forensic Science. Journal of Chemical Education 2006;83(5):690.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ed083p690.
6. Alldredge J. The “CSI Effect” and Its Potential Impact on Juror Decisions.
Themis: Research Journal of Justice Studies and Forensic Science 2015;3(1).
https://doi.org/10.31979/themis.2015.030

5
6