英语论文网

evidences is explained in a study in 2006 [14]. Although it is shown that jurors who are CSI-viewers usually have higher expectations on all types of evidences in every criminal case than non-CSI viewers [14]. CSI-viewers expect different kinds of evidences in different cases than non-viewers. For example, DNA evidences are expected to be present in murders or rapes. In breaking, fingerprint evidences are expected more than DNA evidences [14]. This result may be achieved because the CSI viewers have a better education background in forensics than the non-viewers [14]. It also mentioned that nowadays, with the higher education in science and the rapid development of advanced technologies may cause the jurors in expecting more scientific evidences in cases. This is called the “Tech effect” [14]. Another study from Podlas in 2006, jurors are provided with a rape case scenario without mentioning any physical evidences. It is shown that CSI-viewers and non CSI-viewers provide similar decision of being not guilty because of the lack of physical evidences [17].

3. Positive CSI effects

CSI shows may educate general public, who are out of the scientific field, with some basic idea of science. CSI viewers are informed with the general procedure of the crime scene investigation. Hence, legal personnel such as jurors, who are lay people in the criminal court, will be educated from the CSI shows. In Richmond Virginia, a DNA test on the cigarette butt, which is not subjected as evidences, is asked by the jurors. [4] The defendant found to be not guilty with the fact that the DNA evidences did not link to the defendant. In 2006, Tyler suggested an interesting CSI effect to the prosecuting side. He stated that about 98% of the cases in forensic-related shows end up with the criminals being caught [17]. The CSI effect actually gives a perception to the general public that prosecution side usually win in every case and the bad one will be punished.

From watching the CSI show, students may find that forensic scientists are intelligent, so there is no crime that can’t be solved. More students choose forensic scientists as their major subject in universities. In West Virginia University in the United States, it is reported that the number of graduated forensic students increases from 4 in 1999 to 400 in 2004 [16]. As jurors are now required a large amount of forensic evidences in every cases, forensic scientists are required to cope with the needs.

Conclusion

In conclusion, fingerprint evidences are found to be less reliable to be admissible in the courtroom according to the Daubert’s tests. There may be a probability that forensic scientists lose this valuable evidence in supporting their cases in the near future. To improve the situation, more researches should be done on confirming the uniqueness of fingerprint and the theory behind fingerprinting by scientists, keeping fingerprint evidences to be as reliable as the past. Fingerprint examiners should be trained as fingerprint experts with not just the ability to use the fingerprint identification system, but also having a deep knowledge in the underlying principles of fingerprinting. With greater efforts by scientists, fingerprinting may also be a conventional science in one day.

CSI shows may provide both positive and negative effects on the general public, especially in the criminal justice system. It should be no