No abstract

Television is a powerful medium through which to convey information and messages to the public. The recent proliferation of forensic science and criminal justice information throughout all forms of media, coupled with raised expectations toward forensic evidence, has led some to suspect that a "CSI effect" ( Crime Scene Investigation effect) is taking place. The present study contributes to the literature addressing the CSI effect in two ways. First, it examines whether the CSI effect exists in the Chinese population of Hong Kong. Second, using a mock-jury paradigm, it empirically examines a more integrative perspective of the CSI effect. It was found that, although the amount of media coverage involving forensic evidence does influence participants' perception of legal evidence to some degree, such a perception does not affect participants' legal decision making. Viewers of forensic dramas were not more likely to convict the defendant when forensic evidence was presented and not less likely to convict when only testimonial evidence was presented. The only significant predictor of the defendant's culpability when scientific evidence was presented was participants' ratings of the reliability of scientific evidence. Results from the present study lend no support to the existence of the CSI effect in Hong Kong.

Over-reliance on confession has had a long history in the Chinese criminal justice system. Recent high-profile wrongful conviction cases have raised public awareness of the coercive and torturous methods used to extract confessions. Despite the return of Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty, Hong Kong remains a common law jurisdiction and the most serious criminal offences are tried by a jury. The present study empirically examines the relative impact of DNA evidence, confession, eyewitness testimony, and victim testimony in a Hong Kong-Chinese mock juror sample. The results show that the participants placed greater value on DNA evidence than on confession, and placed the lowest value on testimonial evidence. It is argued that the situation of "one country, two cultures" remains strong: Whereas participants are still influenced by the Chinese criminal justice concept of confession, their judgment is still predominately influenced by the scientific evidence as commonly practiced in the West. Thus, no solid evidence has been found to confirm the emergence of mainlandization in Hong Kong's criminal justice system.

No abstract

No abstract