Steven Avery served 18 years for a crime he didn't commit. Now he's on the line again, and some want to see him put away for good. Courtesy: Netflix

WE are all becoming amateur detectives from the comfort of our own homes.

From looking up crime scenes on Google Earth to sifting through court documents, we can pretty much know everything there is to know about a certain crime.

Look at Making a Murderer for instance, everybody who watched that Netflix series became obsessed with proving Steven Avery guilty or not guilty of killing young photographer Teresa Halbach.

Or Adnan Syed from Serial, did he really kill Hae Min Lee and does the evidence really add up?

We are obsessed with the gritty details and we believe we can potentially have all the answers.

WHY ARE WE OBSESSED?

Forensic psychologist Dr Jack White believes we’ve always been invested in crimes.

“Humans are always fascinated by the elements that might cause people to behave in a criminal or violent way,” he said.

“I think it has always been there all along, you look at Sherlock Holmes and Agatha Christie and see the want to solve crimes has always been there.”

Dr White said becoming amateur detectives was a human trait and looked at it as a problem-solving exercise.

“Human behaviour is usually highly predictable so people want to put the pieces of the puzzle together,” he said.

“I think we are intuitively problem solvers and it’s what makes humans tick.

“Sometimes we get frustrated if we can’t solve the problem.”

Dr White said the internet also impacted on our desire to solve crimes.

“It allows people to access a lot more information,” he said.

“We can look at crimes everywhere in the world and indeed often track down material that comes from the courts to make our investigations easier.”

WHAT WE WANT SOLVED

We like to get obsessed with crimes where nothing seems to add up, and we think we can find the answers.

In Making a Murderer and Serial for instance, some of the evidence put forward in the courts doesn’t add up with the crime.

We’ve also been obsessed with both Amanda Knox and British toddler Madeleine McCann, with a number of theories circulating about the mysterious cases.

Madeleine was a four-year-old who went missing from a hotel room at a resort in Portugal in 2007.

She was left in the room with her younger siblings while her parents had dinner at a restaurant about 50m away.

The parents checked on the children throughout the night, and noticed she was missing about 10pm.

Some people believe she was murdered, others believe she is still alive and many sightings have been reported in the nine years she’s been missing.

After her disappearance there were reports suggesting she died from an overdose of sleeping tablets.

It’s a case that has remained in the front of people’s minds for over a decade, with discussion forums and even podcasts dedicated to solving the crime.

The Amanda Knox case is another mystery that has gripped the world for almost a decade.

The American woman was jailed following the death of her housemate Meredith Kercher in 2007.

Her body was covered by a blood-soaked doona and there were knife marks around her neck.

Knox was a major suspect and she was painted as a sexual demon lacking emotions.

After Knox was jailed, the case was acquitted, but then she was convicted again before the case was finally acquitted last year.

Many questions remain over whether Knox killed her housemate or whether she was mistreated by authorities.

DETECTIVES IN THE COURTROOM

Melbourne Law School senior lecturer Dr Jacqueline Horan said our obsession with being amateur detectives was impacting on courtroom trials.

“There’s always been amateur detectives in juries but the internet and social media has totally turbocharged the problems and the courts can’t manage it the way they used to,” she said.

Jurors by law are not allowed to do any research into cases they are sitting in on.

They can’t Google anything about the crime, look up the criminal histories or read any news relating to the case.

But Dr Horan said we were dealing with jurors now who were digitally savvy and could have access to any information.

Dr Horan said jurors wanted to do a good job and they wanted to satisfy their own curiosities.

A problem with us being amateur detectives is we could be hindering a criminal’s right for a fair trial.

Jurors can also be manipulated by those on trial, with defendants posting material on the internet that could influence a juror’s opinion.

Dr Horan said following Michael Jackson’s death, his doctor Conrad Murray posted a video to YouTube explaining himself.

Martha Stewart did the same thing when her insider trading trial commenced.

Six million people looked at her website, where she posted 80,000 emails of support.

While jurors can’t turn to Google for the answers, they are allowed to ask the judge questions but a 2012 study found 90 per cent of Australian jurors didn’t because they either didn’t know they could or felt uncomfortable doing so.

Dr Horan said our yearning to solve crimes meant courts would have to change its ways.

“It’s not going away,” she said.

“Courts need to not talk at jurors, but instead give them written materials so they can understand what the rules are and are encouraged to ask the judge questions.”