Holmgren Janne A, Fordham Judith
Department of Justice Studies, Mount Royal University, Calgary, Canada.
J Forensic Sci. 2011 Jan;56 Suppl 1:S63-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01621.x. Epub 2010 Dec 13.
Television shows, such as CBS's CSI and its spin-offs CSI: Miami; CSI: Las Vegas; and CSI: New York, have sparked the imagination of thousands of viewers who want to become forensic scientists. The shows' fictional portrayals of crime scene investigations have prompted fears that jurors will demand DNA and other forensic evidence before they will convict, and have unrealistic expectations of that evidence. This has been dubbed the "CSI effect." This phenomenon was explored using results from a Canadian study based on 605 surveys of Canadian college students who would be considered jury-eligible and Australian quantitative and qualitative findings from a study that surveyed and interviewed real posttrial jurors. Information about the way jurors deal with forensic evidence in the context of other evidence and feedback about the way in which understanding such evidence could be increased were gained from both these studies. The comparison provides insights into the knowledge base of jurors, permitting adaptation of methods of presenting forensic information by lawyers and experts in court, based on evidence rather than folklore. While the Canadian juror data showed statistically significant findings that jurors are clearly influenced in their treatment of some forensic evidence by their television-viewing habits, reassuringly, no support was found in either study for the operation of a detrimental CSI effect as defined above. In the Australian study, in fact, support was found for the proposition that jurors assess forensic evidence in a balanced and thoughtful manner.
一些电视节目,如哥伦比亚广播公司(CBS)的《犯罪现场调查》及其衍生剧《犯罪现场调查:迈阿密》《犯罪现场调查:拉斯维加斯》和《犯罪现场调查:纽约》,激发了成千上万想成为法医科学家的观众的想象力。这些节目对犯罪现场调查的虚构描绘引发了人们的担忧,即陪审员在定罪前会要求提供DNA和其他法医证据,并且对这些证据抱有不切实际的期望。这被称为“CSI效应”。利用一项加拿大研究的结果对这一现象进行了探讨,该研究基于对605名符合陪审员资格的加拿大大学生的调查,以及一项对实际审判后的陪审员进行调查和访谈的澳大利亚研究的定量和定性结果。这两项研究都获得了关于陪审员在其他证据背景下处理法医证据的方式的信息,以及关于如何增加对这类证据理解的反馈。通过比较可以深入了解陪审员的知识基础,从而使律师和专家在法庭上基于证据而非传闻来调整呈现法医信息的方法。虽然加拿大陪审员的数据显示出具有统计学意义的结果,即陪审员在对待某些法医证据时明显受到其看电视习惯的影响,但令人欣慰的是,两项研究均未发现上述有害的CSI效应存在。事实上,在澳大利亚的研究中,有证据支持陪审员以平衡和深思熟虑的方式评估法医证据这一观点。