Respond to the discussion questions below and respond to 5 students.
1. Many popular TV shows feature teams who specialize in scientific analysis of crime scene evidence and data mining. As a result, some jurors have developed unreasonable expectations that sophisticated lab results will be introduced at trial. Commentators have called this the “CSI Effect.” In real life it is difficult for a prosecutor to meet these expectations because investigators rarely have the resources available on TV, many of the tests take much longer to produce results that depicted, and some of the tests would never be admitted at trial because they are still experimental. What can the prosecution do to prevent jurors from using the fiction they watch as a basis for what to expect at trial?
1 continued. After reading the topic question, above, please review your text and any other sources you see fit to read/watch on the subject in order to gain a good understanding of the issue. After you have formulated a position on the subject, post your argument, pro or con, on the discussion board. Remember, you must defend your position thoroughly. You will then be required to reply to others' posts with a minimum of five (5) reply posts. Keep in mind, that one word or sentence replies will not be given credit. DON'T WAIT until the last few days of the week to post your position, or to reply to others' posts. You do others, and yourself, a disservice when you don't put the time and effort into this exercise (not to mention that I can see when you post, and I can tell when no effort goes into the discussion!) Have fun with this one!
2. Abolish Parole - page 294
1. Bobby. This is a subject that can be very touchy because jurors are choosen out of a society where television is the only understanding of life. Some members of society rarely take the time to read up on procedures of the criminal justice sytem or any other system so they become reliant on sources that can deliever misconception about a jubject like EVIDENCE! The most relevant con is juror members not being properly educated about the investigative process and procedures in their jurdictions. I belive that not only should jurors backgrounds be researched but should also have some sort of simple briefing that shows and explains process of determining the credabilty of evidence. It should be made clear what assests the local deparrtment has so things wont get misconstrued. TV can make processes look much easier than what they are such as drawing DNA from cremated remains, DNA beingin extracted from everything a subject touches, or inputing DNA into a machine that links it to an individual. Point blank period reality needs to be informed to everyone in a trail.
2. Cody. Prosecutors can have a hard time dealing with jurors who are unfamiliar with the technology that the police have and what is made up for TV. One way that could help jurors understand what's possible for the police to accomplish and the probability of finding evidence is by having the chosen group that's going to judge the trial have a meeting before hand with someone who can relay what it's really like for the police during their investigations. This way the jurors can get an idea of how likely it is to find fingerprints or DNA evidence as well as how often cases actually find murder weapons. This way the unrealistic ideas of gathering evidence from all the TV shows can be disproved and the jurors are able to focus more on the trial rather than wondering why so little evidence is being brought forth by the prosecution.
3. Sughra. This idea may work if lawyers brief them quickly but getting someone to explain police investigations how likely it is to find fingerprints and DNA in murder cases might be too time consuming. Too much information to the jurors could confuse them even more about how crime scene investigations really works. I do think that lawyers should try to weed out the jurors that are too influenced by t.v. shows like CSI or Criminal Minds because they are too biased to the fictional cases that might affect the outcome of the actual trial.
4. Gabrielle. These shows are having a major impact on the juror's decisions and its unfortunate because they are in control of someone's life. Jurors need to come into court with an open mind and with no expectations. It might take a longer process to evaluate the jurors state of mind, but there should be a sample test given so the prosecution can eliminate those who do not understand the actual process of the courtroom or the collection of evidence. This process can make sure that the prosecution is getting a fair trial
5. Marynhor. When it comes to popular TV shows like Criminal Minds and CSI, they make people feel as if they know everything about criminal investigation and give them false expectations. Not many actually take their personal time to learn how our criminal justice system actually runs but choose to live off what they see. It can alter some ones perception on real life expectations. Real life laboratory’s are going to be much more different than on TV shows, like from your specialists to the equipment being used. When it comes to jurors, I feel like the court should choose jurors based more on their profile background like their knowledge based off something that could benefit the case instead of at random. While a case is going on in court, it would be very useful to have jurors that specialize in certain areas so that when they all talk the case over. All the jurors can put their own professional opinion and can help properly justify whether the defense is guilty or not. Just to at least minimize the chances of mistakenly prosecuting someone that may or may not deserve it.
|Due By (Pacific Time)
||10/11/2014 02:00 pm