Not everyone is convinced that TV churns out sophisticated criminals who plan out their crimes and know how to function so they're invisible to their pursuers. Count University of Missouri criminal justice professor Ken Novak among the skeptics. To Novak, most crimes are born either out of passion or opportunity, not planned out meticulously in advance. "It's not clear to me that people are making decisions based on forensics or what they believe the capacity of the police to be," he says. "Most break-ins are pretty rudimentary. The aren't cutting glass or using gloves. They see an opportunity and take it."
Where Novak and many others believe shows like "CSI" do have an impact is with juries -- enough people are convinced of this phenomenon that it has been coined the "CSI Effect," and it refers to an expectation amongst jurors that all cases will include forensic evidence [source: Shelton]. "The jury expects all kinds of technology and lab reports and processing to be done," says Joe Dane, who worked as a Los Angeles County deputy sheriff, a prosecutor and now as a defense attorney. It was important enough of a factor in cases that, as a prosecutor, Dane would ask potential jurors whether they watched TV crime shows and whether or not they expected to see DNA evidence [source: Dane].
Although plenty of anecdotal evidence exists about the "CSI Effect," at least one study cast doubt on its impact on convictions. Three faculty members from Eastern Michigan University surveyed 1,000 jury members before their participation in a trial, asking them about their TV watching habits and what they expected in terms of scientific evidence in order to convict. They found little to be concerned about. The study determined that even though CSI viewers did actually expect to see more scientific evidence than those who didn't watch the show, it did not have any impact on their likelihood to convict an accused criminal [source: Shelton].