I hadn't heard of this before. It's the CSI effect. The hypothesis is that shows like CSI influence our courts and help criminals evade capture and prosecution.
I'll have to dig deeper into how the experiments were done. But the consensus so far is there is no direct correlation.
More research will be required to satisy this skeptic. But the topic is interesting nonetheless.
I would hope not. If shows like CSI weren't sensationalized somewhat, they would be boring. I already think they're boring.
Used to watch CSI. DNA seems to win out most cases. Much more research needed.
I think such shows raise jury expectations. Most crime labs dont' ahve the budgets for the advanced crime scene processing depicted on such shoes. When the prosecution doesn't have the evidence produced by advanced procedures, I think it can, in the mind of jurors, make for a weaker case.
A friend of mine was a police sergeant for several years, spent plenty of time in court. This was exactly his experience. He said that jurors often expected police to have the kind of air-tight evidence that CSI episodes tended to show, and were less likely to convict as a result.
I remember one of Penn & Teller's Bullshit! episodes where they question the veracity of Forensics as science. It was very illuminating.
To think the lay public isn't influenced by the sexy packaging of a fiction show like CSI does not surprise me. I've met some of these people in real life. They're not sexy...at all!
Anything presented over television has influence one way or another.
Sure... I started breaking into things when Robert Wagner had a show called It Takes A Thief. Here I am just a stupid little boy running around picking locks and getting a buzz off the excitement. I was a mess.