These individuals expect the same from the state and there standards to convict have become much higher.
The article also states that there have been more acquittals on defendants more often.
“Some have claimed that jurors who see the high-quality forensic evidence presented on CSI raise their standards in real trials, in which actual evidence is typically more flawed and uncertain. As a result, these CSI-affected jurors are alleged to acquit defendants more frequently” (Tyler). However, the article argues that the CSI Effect may cause other effects other than people having higher standards on evidence in trials, but that it may have the opposite effect. The article argues that the CSI Effect may have the opposite effect on jurors and that it can increase their likelihood to convict. The article argued that people may lower their standards, since the community would want closure, through truth and justice. Ultimately, I believe both arguments of causing jurors to have higher standards and lower standards are good, but using the argument of lower standards to dismiss the arguments of individuals having higher standards is more biased by the author than a good