THE CSI EFFECT : POPULAR FICTION ABOUT FORENSIC SCIENCE AFFECTS THE PUBLIC ’ S EXPECTATIONS ABOUT REAL FORENSIC SCIENCE
THE CSI EFFECT : POPULAR FICTION ABOUT FORENSIC SCIENCE AFFECTS THE PUBLIC ’ S EXPECTATIONS ABOUT REAL FORENSIC SCIENCE
复制标题
犯罪现场调查效应：有关法医科学的流行小说影响了公众对真正法医科学的期望
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2007
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Saks
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
N. J. Schweitzer;M. Saks
有两个假设被粗略地称为CSI效应，这两个假设表明，电视节目及其衍生产品，疯狂夸大和美化法医科学，影响公众，反过来又会影响审判，要么（a）通过对法医科学产生比所能实现的更大的期望来增加起诉负担，要么（B）通过对法医科学的能力和可靠性产生夸大的信心来加重辩护的负担。本研究通过向模拟陪审员提供一份模拟审判记录，其中包括一名法医科学家的证词来验证这些假设。定罪的理由相对薄弱，除非专家证词能够使案件跨越合理怀疑的门槛。除了对审判证据的反应外，受访者还被问及他们的电视观看习惯。与非《犯罪现场调查》观众相比，《犯罪现场调查》观众对审判中提供的法医证据持更严厉的批评态度，认为其不太可信。关于他们的判决，29%的非CSI观众表示他们会定罪，而CSI观众的比例为18%（统计上没有显著差异）。法医科学观众比非观众对他们的判决更有信心。然而，普通犯罪节目的观众与未观看的观众在任何其他依赖性措施上没有显著差异，这表明对法医科学证词的怀疑是特定于那些饮食中包含大量法医科学电视节目的人。* N. J. Schweitzer是一位博士。候选人，亚利桑那州立大学心理学系。Michael J. Saks是亚利桑那州州立大学Sandra Day奥康纳法学院法律和心理学教授，法律、科学和技术研究中心研究员。作者希望感谢Dawn McQuiston-Surrett对本项目的帮助和实验材料的开发。信件可寄至亚利桑那州州立大学心理学系N. J. Schweitzer，滕佩，AZ 85287-1104或njs@asu.edu。文章Schweitzer和萨克斯358 47 JURIMETRICS引文：N. J. Schweitzer和Michael J. Saks，CSI效应：关于法医科学的流行小说影响公众对真实的法医科学的期望，47 Jurimetrics J. 357-364（2007）。近年来，电视节目《犯罪现场调查》（CSI）及其衍生作品将法医学描绘成高科技魔法，迅速而准确地解决犯罪问题。当然，CSI只是虚构的。一位法医科学家估计，CSI中40%的“科学”并不存在，其余的大部分都是以犯罪实验室人员只能梦想的方式进行的。事实和虚构之间的差距导致CSI被指责（或归功于）对美国社会产生了各种影响。然而，法律的学者们最感兴趣的是与审判有关的假设效果，这种效果有两种基本类型：一种认为CSI增加了控方的负担，另一种认为它增加了辩方的负担。最常听到的假设是，CSI提高了公众对法庭科学证据的期望，这种证据可以而且应该在审判中提供，以至于陪审员对他们提出的真实的证据感到失望。由CSI指导的陪审员们已经开始期望高科技法医学能够存在于各种犯罪现场残留物中，并能够解决各种犯罪。在审判中实际提供的证据令人失望，因为要么太少（或没有）法医科学被提出，要么所提出的是没有电视上看到的那么令人印象深刻。无论哪种方式，这种理论认为，陪审员无罪释放更多的被告，因为在法庭上，他们没有看到足够的法医科学说服他们有罪。另一个相反的假设是，CSI愚弄了公众，让他们认为法医学比实际上更有效、更准确。如果这是真的，陪审员可能会欣然接受法医学证人指向他们的任何结论。这两种假设不一定相互冲突。当控方提出任何法医学证据时，控方可能会受益，而当没有法医学证据时，辩方可能会受益。无论“CSI效应”对控方还是辩方有帮助，评论员们似乎都同意一件事：CSI正在说服公众，法医学不仅是科学，而且是超级科学。如果为真，则为1。西蒙科尔和雷切尔迪奥索，法律和实验室：电视节目真的影响陪审团投票？让我们看看证据，华尔街，2005年5月13日，在W13（引用法医科学家托马斯Mauriello的话）。2.同上; Kimberlianne Podlas，“CSI效应”：揭露媒体神话，16福德姆INTELL。《媒体和环境法》，第429页（2006年）。3.其他假设的“CSI效应”是，该计划教育了公众对法医科学的认识，增加了公众对法医科学的兴趣，并增加了希望从事法医科学的学生人数。第442话4.第433话5.第437话
Two of a number of hypotheses loosely referred to as the CSI Effect suggest that the television program and its spin-offs, which wildly exaggerate and glorify forensic science, affect the public, and in turn affect trials either by (a) burdening the prosecution by creating greater expectations about forensic science than can be delivered or (b) burdening the defense by creating exaggerated faith in the capabilities and reliability of the forensic sciences. The present study tested these hypotheses by presenting to mock jurors a simulated trial transcript that included the testimony of a forensic scientist. The case for conviction was relatively weak, unless the expert testimony could carry the case across the threshold of reasonable doubt. In addition to reacting to the trial evidence, respondents were asked about their television viewing habits. Compared to non-CSI viewers, CSI viewers were more critical of the forensic evidence presented at the trial, finding it less believable. Regarding their verdicts, 29% of non-CSI viewers said they would convict, compared to 18% of CSI viewers (not a statistically significant difference). Forensic science viewers expressed more confidence in their verdicts than did non-viewers. Viewers of general crime programs, however, did not differ significantly from their non-viewing counterparts on any of the other dependent measures, suggesting that skepticism toward the forensic science testimony was specific to those whose diet consisted of heavy doses of forensic science television programs. *N.J. Schweitzer is a Ph.D. candidate, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University. Michael J. Saks is Professor of Law and Psychology and Faculty Fellow, Center for the Study of Law, Science, and Technology, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University. The authors wish to thank Dawn McQuiston-Surrett for her assistance with this project and for the development of the experimental materials. Correspondence can be sent to N.J. Schweitzer, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104 or njs@asu.edu. ARTICLE Schweitzer and Saks 358 47 JURIMETRICS CITATION: N.J. Schweitzer and Michael J. Saks, The CSI Effect: Popular Fiction About Forensic Science Affects the Public’s Expectations About Real Forensic Science, 47 Jurimetrics J. 357–364 (2007). In recent years, the television program CSI and its spin-offs have portrayed forensic science as high-tech magic, solving crimes quickly and unerringly. Of course, CSI is only fiction. One forensic scientist estimates that 40% of the “science” on CSI does not exist, and most of the rest is performed in ways that crime lab personnel can only dream about. The gap between fact and fiction has led CSI to be accused of (or credited with) having a variety of effects on American society. Legal scholars, however, will be most interested in hypothesized effects related to trials, which come in two basic flavors: one posits that CSI adds to the burdens of the prosecution, and the other asserts that it adds to the burdens of the defense. The hypothesis heard most often is that CSI has raised the public’s expectations for the kind of forensic-science evidence that could and should be offered at trials to such heights that jurors are disappointed by the real evidence with which they are presented. Jurors tutored by CSI have come to expect high-tech forensic science to exist for all kinds of crime scene residua and to be able to solve all kinds of crimes. Evidence actually offered at trials disappoints, because either too little (or no) forensic science is presented or what is presented is less impressive than what is seen on television. Either way, goes this theory, jurors are acquitting more defendants because in court they are not seeing enough forensic science to persuade them of guilt. An alternative hypothesis, which runs in the opposite direction, is that CSI has fooled the public into thinking that forensic science is far more effective and accurate than it actually is. If true, jurors may be likely to readily accept whatever conclusions forensic science witnesses point them to. The two hypotheses are not necessarily at war with each other. The prosecution might benefit when it presents any forensic-science evidence, and the defense might benefit when there is no forensic-science evidence. Whether the “CSI Effect” helps the prosecution or the defense, the commentators seem to agree on one thing: that CSI is convincing the public that forensic science not only is science, but it is super science. If true, this is 1. Simon Cole & Rachel Dioso, Law and the Lab: Do TV Shows Really Affect How Juries Vote? Let’s Look at the Evidence, WALL ST. J., May 13, 2005, at W13 (quoting forensic scientist Thomas Mauriello). 2. Id.; Kimberlianne Podlas, “The CSI Effect”: Exposing the Media Myth, 16 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 429 (2006). 3. Other hypothesized “CSI effects” are that the program has educated the public about forensic science, that it has increased the public’s interest in forensic science, and that it has increased the number of students who want careers in forensic science. Id. at 442. 4. Id. at 433. 5. Id. at 437.