Teaching Popular Culture

the CSI effect

This week's Baltimore City Paper has a very interesting interview with UM law professor Taunya Banks on the effect of criminal justice television shows on the prosecution, jury and defense in modern American trials.

A brief excerpt:

Banks: What I find amazing is that lawyer shows and these CSI shows are incredibly popular and have become the substitute for learning about how the legal system works, because most Americans don't serve on juries, and the only time that most Americans come into contact with the legal system is on those few occasions when they may be called for jury duty. So how should they know what's going on? They watch "Judge Judy". They watch "The Practice" or "Boston Legal" or the Law and Order stuff.

It's really interesting to think about both sides of this influence. In Homicide, David Simon recounted homicide investigators lamenting jurors who thought every case should have forensic evidence, or eyewitnesses, or fingerprints, or else they would not convict. Banks believes that while the effects of the shows may be damaging, the shows also encourage lawyers to use more visual aids in their cases and to bring as much forensic evidence as possible to courtrooms. We've all heard stories about amazing DNA break-throughs in cold cases or closed cases; perhaps if juries demand more DNa evidence, more DNA labs will function faster and be funded better by states and the federal government.

Have you used criminal justice shows in your classes, or written about their effects on juries and trials? Share your stories in the comments. Do you think these shows are beneficial or deleterious to American justice?

posted by jackie @ 8:09 PM