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.
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.
