Ah yes, CSI. It has something for everybody: romance, suspence, mystery, action, gore, etc... In a "taking it way to seriously" move, folks have issued statements pointing out that CSI Greg "dig the hair" Sanders neglected to follow forensic best-practices when analyzing digital evidence. The folks over at "CY4OR" have pointed out that the technique that Greg used was irresponsible and would never stand up in a court of law (I'm assuming that "CY4OR" is a 'r33t way of saying "cipher", but I could be wrong about that...) Anyway, according to these folks:
"Not only could this potentially damage evidence, any incriminating data that was uncovered would undoubtedly be thrown out of a court of law as the proper evidential procedures would not have been put in place. The evidential continuity would have been compromised and a criminal case could collapse."
Yeah; what he said. As a fan of the show, I'm deeply concerned. After all, shouldn't evidentiary procedure be the centerpiece of all entertainment? I mean, in this case it stands out particularly strong because it cuts agains the grain of the hyper-realism that is the rest of CSI. After all, when a forensics specialist kicks down a door and takes on a gang of thugs in a gun-battle, you'd think there'd be at least some paperwork or something...
Yep - I agree with CY4OR - we really need to make sure that entertainment is judged against the yardstick of real-life experience. The same way that Star Trek represents the reality of modern physics, CSI should really work harder on reflecting real-life evidentiary procedures.