The Law & Order Effect

An article in today's Washington Post about how it is becoming more and more difficult for D.A.'s to get guilty verdicts for homicide prosecutions includes this observation:
...interviews with jurors, prosecutors and defense attorneys suggest that the verdicts, in many instances, show how television crime shows such as NBC's "Law & Order" have raised the expectation of jurors, even as they are becoming increasingly doubtful of dodgy witnesses, often criminals themselves.

It's a Law & Order world order! However, as the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, it is a part of our criminal justice system that the prosecutors' duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendent is guilty - whose fault is it that juries are smarter? Or think they are more savvy? Maybe prosecutors need to play the Law & Order card more. Law & Order producer Dick Wolf mentioned how one defense lawyer, during his remarks, told the jury, "You all watch Law & Order - you know the first suspect is never the one who did the crime."

Gothamist wonders what would happen if someone went on and on about Law & Order or wore a Law & Order hat at jury selection. As in, would the person be rejected or accepted and why? (Trial lawyers, speak up!) Because more times that not, the defendent is found guilty.

[Via reader Scott - thanks]

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in Arts & Entertainment on September 19, 2003 10:36 AM

Comments [rss]

Mr. Magoo

Just become a police officer and get a taste of the real thing, it's nothing like you see on tv. I think you would get a taste of reality and wonder "what was I thinking!".

Anonymous

Law & Order & Law & Order & Law & Order & Law & Order ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/21/magazine/21LAWORDER.html

Jellyguy

Guys like me don't get elected. We get swept into power by misguided revolutions and bloody military coups.

But I'll keep you in mind for my Minister of Culture and Recreational Pharmaceuticals, dear.

Funny thing is, our dearly departed Founding Fathers probably had the same gut reaction to the concept of a jury system: "Judged by the people? Ha! The same people who leave manure footprints on my foyer's marble floors when they deliver my freshly-powdered wigs? Those peasants can't even decide which nostril to pick first, let alone the guilt or innocence of a hard-working landowner!"

Jen

eebmore: You can get the hat here, at the NBC Shop

JellyGuy: How do I elect you into office for you to propose this wonderful plan?

Randee: Cool! Definitely will check that out.

Randee

There's been a whole book written on this type of effect (TV's portrayal of trials, etc. and its effect on not only juries, but lawyers and the legal system):

When Law Goes Pop: The Vanishing Line Between Law and Popular Culture

by Richard K. Sherwin

It's dense reading, but well done.

In any case, the idea that L&O specifically would influence juries *against* the prosecution seems pretty ridiculous: The show has as its protaganists/heroes the district attorney's office (and the cops). We nearly always see them working their butts off to countermand the various ways defense attorneys try to get their clients off.

Someone needs to remind the Post that shows like "The Practice" are more likely to bias jurors than L&O, if that is in fact happening.

Jellyguy

Why not create a symbiotic merger of the two genres (jury duty and crime drama), skip the whole jury duty process, and create a vote-from-home jury system? Log on to the trial, watch it in full on TV or over the internet, and then vote to BBQ or not to BBQ?

Mmmmmmm, BBQ...