A General Mac Ethics Question(Or any CSI, Really)

Discussion in 'CSI: New York' started by La_Guera, Dec 6, 2006.

  1. La_Guera

    La_Guera Lab Technician

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    525
    Likes Received:
    0
    After my ill-tempered diatribe on Flack last night, I got to thinking: Every once in a while on the forensic dramas, some suspect yahoo will piss and moan about having to live without an item while it is processed-Blackberry, PDA, cellphone. Usually, the CSIs snarkily tell them where to cram it, but what if the evidence is something a person cannot live without? A wheelchair, for instance? Not one of those ass-eroding, flimsy, aluminum jobbies, either-the tanks with head and spinal support, dual batteries, chest harnesses. In other words, a chair without which the user would be helpless and unable to function in their day-to-day life?

    How far does the pursuit of justice go? Would the state have the right to temporarily rob a living individual of his right to live and work, of his right to the pursuit of happiness, to aid the dead? Could the state order a disabled person be ordered into the hospital while the CSIs dismantled their chair for trace, even if said disabled person was only a bystander to the alleged crime? And even if they could, would it be ethical to do so?

    Grissom has already proven that while he speaks for the dead, there are limits to what he will do. When the only way to prove whether or not a victim had been poisoned was to biopsy an already-transplanted kidney and endanger the recipient, Grissom agreed with Nick's refusal to make the request. It was only after the kidney failed anyway that the biopsy was performed.

    Horatio would probably wheedle and smarm his way to the chair, but in an effort to achieve sainthood while still breathing, he would also personally spring for another, better chair with GPS, an MP3, and hydraulics, and depending on the gender of the user, he would have the old onereturned by either Callie or Delko so the cooperative citizen would get some eye candy for their pains.

    But what about Mac? "Officer Blue" shows us that he has a sympathetic side, but for the most part, he's Mr. Justice, except he wears his underwear on the inside of his pants. Would he look for another way, or would he just subpoena the chair, all the while spouting tired cliches about justice for the victim? Never mind that the disabled person, who was just in the wrong place, is now lying in a bed like a shucked mollusk while uneducated fingers are bumbling through and over their means of useful function.

    And what would Flack and Danny think? They both have a "protect the weaker" mentality. Would they approve of Mac essentially robbing another innocent human being of their personal freedom to catch a dirtbag, especially if that person had vigorously protested that loss? Would they see it as an abuse of the power with which they have been entrusted? And surely Hawkes, as a doctor, would know the long-term physical and emotional effects of mobility loss. Not to mention the forced confinement aspect.
     
  2. MrsGiovinazzo

    MrsGiovinazzo CSI Level Three

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    You've made quite a leap from taking a wheelchair into evidence to ordering the disabled owner of the wheelchair into the hospital while the evidence is examined. The first part of your post seems to be a rational question, while the later part of the phrasing is an emotional reaction. Yes, CSIs could take possession of some item an individual depends on for their daily existence, assuming the need to examine it was so great as to justify a warrant. However, if doing so would result in extraordinary hardship, the owner of the wheelchair could demand that a comparable chair be provided for the duration of the time the wheelchair was held as evidence.

    Odering someone to a hospital while the chair is examined is a totally different issue and is not the logical outcome of a warrant for the chair.

    Why would it be unethical to pursue a piece of potentially valuable evidence? Is the inconvenience to the owner of the wheelchair, who would need to use a comparable substitute so great as to justify letting a murderer walk simply because they must have their chair. No other chair will do?

    I think Mac has a heart, as does the rest of his team. If the need for the chair was essential to the investigation, I'm sure he'd find the most humanitarian means of meeting the needs of the investigation while minimizing the inconvenience to the owner of the chair.

    You make the unwarranted assumption that the court order for the wheelchair wouldn't contain some provision for a temporary replacement. Warrants don't just execute themselves. Judges are real people who take special needs into consideration when ruling on warrants. As such, the owner of the wheelchair wouldn't find themselves in the situation you invision.

    As such, any CSI with a need to "protect the weak" would want to see all relevant evidence examined. The "weak" being the dead person, whose murder could go unsolved if all avenues aren't pursued.
     
  3. CSI808

    CSI808 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Day-yum MrsG! You go with your legal self! But I did learn something... good to know since I'm going into criminal justice/forensics.
     
  4. ThumpyG

    ThumpyG Coroner

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,235
    Likes Received:
    0
    MrsG , I love the defense attorney in you. :lol:

    I have realized from my criminal laws of evidence class that I am taking that I would make a better defense atty than a prosecutor. Obviously, because the state has the burden of proof and all but I can nail some ass as a defense atty. :D

    but as far as evidence goes, pretty much what MrsG said about the wheelchair. If the chair is relevant to the investigation and the offense then it can be taken as evidence. Plus, no one will suffer any undue hardship as a result of any evidence taken.

    ok, enough play time, now I have to work on my evidence paper :rolleyes:
     
  5. La_Guera

    La_Guera Lab Technician

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    525
    Likes Received:
    0
    Making the leap from chair to hospital is not that great a leap if the person cannot care for themselves adequately without the chair. Yes, I suppose there would be a requisite for reasonable substitution. However, who is to say what is reasonable substitution when-odds are-neither the judge nor the lawyers have the foggiest notion of life with that disability?

    No judge would specifically order the individual in question to the hospital, but that may well be an unintended consequence if a reasonable substitution cannot be made. If the person cannot afford home health care, then going to the hospital may be the only alternative. In that case, how does Mac as an investigator reconcile that with the inherent obligation to the case?

    Some folks get along with any old chair, but many chairs are complex, customized pieces of equipment specifically tailored to the user. And they're not cheap; some run into $60,000 dollars. For most users, being without chairs isn't just an "inconvenience". If the loss of the chair is an extended one, users run the risk of pressure sores that can go septic, and muscle and joint damage from chronic misalignment.

    I'm not saying that Mac doesn't have the right to petition for the evidence. What I am asking is where would he and the others, as human beings, draw the line and say, "I cannot or will not pursue this avenue of inquiry."?
     
  6. Ceindreadh

    Ceindreadh Pathologist

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course, on CSI, if the owner of the item in question protested too much about having to give it up, chances are they'd be implicated in the crime anyway <g>
     
  7. MrsGiovinazzo

    MrsGiovinazzo CSI Level Three

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    Everyone has their lines they won't cross and despite the fact that you seemingly want to believe the worst, disabilities can be respected in the course of working up a case. Unless the item in question is the actual murder weapon, CSIs probably wouldn't need to hang onto it for very long. If they just need to run a simply test on it, that could possibly be done while the owner of the item waits.

    There are also times when the best evidence available simply isn't practical and other means will be considered. For example, when using witness testimony at trial, live testimony is the best evidence available. However, personally, I've used videotaped depositions, video conferencing and even simply relied on just written deposition transcripts because I don't want to be the bitch who drags an old lady out of her convalescent hospital to put her on the stand, puts a mentally unstable person through the stress of a day in court or scares the hell out of a child. Sometimes the best possible form of the evidence you seek isn't essential.

    Further, there's another consideration. Economics always factor in. The person who owns a $60,000 customized wheelchair that might contain potentially useful evidence can rest easy. Only in rare, highly public trials while prosecutors pull out all the stops to persue a case at all costs. Otherwise, something you'll rarely hear acknowledged is that District Attorneys offices operate on a budget. Often a tight budget. Something like having to compensate someone for the loss of a $60,000 wheelchair could mean having one less assistant D.A. salary available. That's just reality. While my experience is limited to civil defense, I can tell you there is no way in hell I'd ever have authorization from a client to go after a $60,000 piece of evidence. A typical defense budget in a civil trial is about $10,000 (inclusive of court costs, attorney fees, the whole nine yards). A $60,000 piece of evidence just wouldn't come into play. The text book ideal of how a case should be handled is rarely the way it actually plays out. You do the best you can with what you've got and I imagine CSIs have to face that as well in their investigation of the cases they forward for prosecution.
     
  8. La_Guera

    La_Guera Lab Technician

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    525
    Likes Received:
    0
    Before I say anything else, was this:

    really necessary? What do my personal feelings, which you know nothing about, have to do with the rest of your argument? I asked the question because I have noticed a distinct tendency in Mac to ignore the human element to a dangerous degree this season, and I used disability as an example because it is a device the show has used several times in its run. In fact, it seems poised to do so again next week. It was not meant to paint Mac as an evil ogre.

    As to the rest of your post, thank you for your insights into the justice system.
     
  9. Showtime

    Showtime Police Officer

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that MrsG meant that your posts are showing a tendency to point out the less-human side of Mac, which really we've got no evidence for, but disregard all responses that state otherwise. The second part of her last post was really answering your question -- not just an in depth look of how the US justice system works.

    Apparantly, until the $10,000 mark.

    If you look at MrsG's post, directly after she made the comment about you, you'll see this: "Unless the item in question is the actual murder weapon, CSIs probably wouldn't need to hang onto it for very long. If they just need to run a simply test on it, that could possibly be done while the owner of the item waits."

    A bystander is still involved, and it is obstructing justice if they refuse to help out in the case. Also, its very, very rare for a disabled person to not have a back-up plan.
     
  10. La_Guera

    La_Guera Lab Technician

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    525
    Likes Received:
    0
    Posts, as in collective posts, and not just the one that kicked off this thread? That's all well and fine, but this thread was a hypothetical what-if. What if this happened? How would Mac and the others react?

    Of course I have my theories, and yes, I emphasize the "less-human" side of Mac because, in my opinion, Mac has been systematically dehumanized by the writers since S1, when episodes like "Blink" and "Officer Blue" showcased his decency. In my view, the Mac of S1 would have exhausted all other options before the scenario I tossed out; S3 Mac would not. Your mileage obviously varies.

    You claim I ignore evidence to the contrary. I do not deny that evidence exists(in fact, I just provided some.), but where was it in this thread?

    I don't take umbrage with MrsG's legal deconstruction of the question. What does chap my cheeks is the out-if-place personal comment in an otherwise fascinating response.
     
  11. MrsGiovinazzo

    MrsGiovinazzo CSI Level Three

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's precisely what I meant. The tone of your phrasing isn't exactly objective where Mac is concerned. It's as if you want to believe the worst in him and believe that our legal system would allow for the worst. I know what you think I might be referring to and I assure you I am not. My apologies if you thought it was personal.

    I understand your thread topic is hypothetical and I guess my only real point is to say that you seem to have painted Mac as this horror of a human who would stop at nothing. I could answer the question hypothetically and speculate as to how the character might handle such an issue. But I guess the lawyer in me only sees the issues within the hypothethical itself, so I answer your quandry in that manner.
     
  12. La_Guera

    La_Guera Lab Technician

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    525
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am under no illusions that it is. I freely admit that Mac starches my drawers to an inordinate degree since COTP.

    Not at all. His interactions with Reed show that Mac is not an unfeeling cretin. However, Mac seems oblivious to any consequences or emotional ramifications beyond the immediate purview of the case, and he is also hellbent on protecting the integrity of the lab. Rightfully so, of course, but often, his handling of situations and crises leaves much to be desired(reaming Hawkes in front of 9000 co-workers, making Lindsay watch, ambushing Flack in the street, relieving Danny of his badge and gun in front of the universe, slapping Peyton's hand away).

    Mac develops tunnel vision on cases, and he needs the rest of the team to remind him that while he may be right, his actions affect real human beings,

    Take "Officer Blue," for instance. Mac is initially adamant that the injured horse be operated on. To him, the animal is just evidence. It's only after the DA tells him the story behind the horse that Mac considered anything beyond his black-and-white assessment of the situation. Once he did understand that the horse was more than breathing meat, he went above and beyond to spare the animal, but it bothers me that he needed reminding of that human element in the first place.

    I'd like to think Mac would realize the conundrum and do his best to resolve the issues with decency and fairness, but I still think that somebody on the team would need to slap him first.
     
  13. MacsGirlMel

    MacsGirlMel Mac's Personal Assistant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    14,682
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm curious, what happened in COTP that you're talking about?

    Wow Mrs.G...what's your job exactly? You have my way curious :)
     
  14. MrsGiovinazzo

    MrsGiovinazzo CSI Level Three

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nothing as exciting as the forensic side of the criminal stuff we see on TV. I'm an attorney -- commercial liability defense. Not very sexy, I'm afraid.
     
  15. La_Guera

    La_Guera Lab Technician

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    525
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rather than write a giant harangue, MacsGirlMel, I'll just direct you to this post I made after a second viewing of COTP. I hope it makes sense.
     

Share This Page