I really wanted to write a review because I just figured out Paul Cyden's name abbreviates into being Poseidon. LOL.
Anyway, yes, the episode hasn't aged well. Lots of things don't. To claim it can never be shown in reruns because it "spreads misinformation" is ridiculous on more than one level. You have to watch with a historian's eye and acknowledge the past with context. That's like saying you can't learn about any bad time in history (which is most of it), because it teaches impure ideas or something.
Also, just because a character in a show says something, that was the writer's choice for that character. It does not mean the entire staff of the show endorses that point of view. You'll notice in this episode, Nick says what is now an offensive term. That's the type of guy the writers felt Nick was. You'll notice Grissom has a different point of view, and so does Doc Robbins. So are they endorsing every competing point of view at once? The writers may have had a completely different view from all of them. People have no sense of context.
Also, the CSI team did not "ignore a crime just because a woman did it", like one reviewer says. You'll notice they did take the case to the DA. As Grissom always says, they don't judge. They just collect the evidence. It was the DA's office who decided they'd never get a jury to convict. Which is something completely different.
Anyway, Poseidon!
Anyway, yes, the episode hasn't aged well. Lots of things don't. To claim it can never be shown in reruns because it "spreads misinformation" is ridiculous on more than one level. You have to watch with a historian's eye and acknowledge the past with context. That's like saying you can't learn about any bad time in history (which is most of it), because it teaches impure ideas or something.
Also, just because a character in a show says something, that was the writer's choice for that character. It does not mean the entire staff of the show endorses that point of view. You'll notice in this episode, Nick says what is now an offensive term. That's the type of guy the writers felt Nick was. You'll notice Grissom has a different point of view, and so does Doc Robbins. So are they endorsing every competing point of view at once? The writers may have had a completely different view from all of them. People have no sense of context.
Also, the CSI team did not "ignore a crime just because a woman did it", like one reviewer says. You'll notice they did take the case to the DA. As Grissom always says, they don't judge. They just collect the evidence. It was the DA's office who decided they'd never get a jury to convict. Which is something completely different.
Anyway, Poseidon!