It also refers to the fact that potential criminals are finding ways to avoid detection or to get away with their crimes by watching the show. With these considerations, it is apt to say that CSI has had a major impact on forensic science. This paper shall discuss such impacts based on input from criminologists and forensic scientists. This discussion is being undertaken in the hope of coming up with a clear and comprehensive discussion on the current subject matter and its long-term implications in the forensic practice.
In understanding the impact of CSI on forensic science, the discussion goes deeper into the so-called CSI-effect. In the immediate years following the launch of the television show, forensic science courses and careers gained much popularity in the academe (Lee, 2007, p. 22). Judging from the increase in the number of university applicants to forensic courses, the show was able to draw in university applicants to try out for careers in these fields of practice. However, these applicants may have been misinformed by the television show – implying that the roles of CSIs to be much more than they actually are in the real world (Lee, 2007, p. 22). For one, the fact that most of the CSIs seem to play various roles on set – as forensic processor, suspect interrogator, or as police detectives – are already inaccurate depictions of crime scene investigators. In actuality, CSIs do not process forensics, nor do they interrogate suspects or run after suspects with guns drawn (Lee, 2007, p. 22). In effect, CSI has drawn in forensic science enthusiasts based on an inaccurate picture of the actual workings of CSI work. People have been drawn to it based on their romantic and even gallant or heroic ideals about the type of work involved in being a CSI. But this picture of the CSI in the actual practice is not all true.
CSI also has had an impact on juries. Many of these juries seem to expect and even demand that the