Big things are happening on TV Tropes! New admins, new designs, fewer ads, mobile versions, beta testing opportunities, thematic discovery engine, fun trope tools and toys, and much more - Learn how to help here and discuss here.
Please Note: This page is for sincere questions, not complaining about the characters or the show. Do not use this page to ask "why does x suck so much?" Also refrain from making comments such as "x is such a <derogatory name>." Please keep a friendly tone and don't let your question or answer become a rant.
It has been remarked on this page multiple times that the tone of the show has changed, with a rise in drama and Shocking Swerves. It has also been remarked even more times that the characters have been Flanderized. Let's try to keep the page nice by not mentioning these things any more unless it's absolutely necessary to answer a question.
Before adding a new question please be sure that the topic isn't already being discussed.
open/close all folders
Benson vs Lewis Saga
Obviously the storylines of this show aren't made to make 100% sense simply to keep things interesting, with that being said there are several little practicalities about this particular storyline that either didn't make sense or where never clearly answered:
Was 'William Lewis' really his real name? When they first identified him in the episode "Her Negotiation" they found his New York state ID/driver's license with his full name, birthdate, hometown, etc, on it. What are the odds that a career criminal like this would knowingly have his real information available on file?
How the hell did he break into Olivia's apartment with NO signs of forced entry?
What all did he do to Olivia before she gained consciousness at the beginning of "Surrender Benson"?
When he kidnapped her, how did he remove her from her apartment totally unnoticed by security cameras, neighbors, passerby, etc?
What happened when he took Olivia to the bathroom?
What was he planning to do with Viva and Luisa after he ushered them into the beach house? More hostages just means more trouble right? Wouldn't it have made more sense to just make up some excuse for why they couldn't come in and tell them to leave and come back later?
After Olivia managed to restrain him, why didn't she duct tape his mouth as well? The only reason he got under her skin was because while he couldn't physically hurt her, he was free to talk.
What are the odds of a person not only surviving being beaten repeatedly with a metal bar but resurrecting himself several times afterwards? (Lewis literally died and came back to life 4 or 5 times during this storyline, is that even medically possible?)
Was he really that sick and pompous that it took him 4 days to finally decide he was going to rape Olivia? He wasted no time in raping his other victims, she was the only one with whom he needed everything to be "perfect".
In "Beast's Obsession" what are the odds of a rapist deciding not to rape his victim simply because she refused to resist him or fight back? Most rapists want their victims to not show any resistance, don't they?
There's no way he could've anticipated Olivia refusing to fight him back when he tried to rape her a second time. . .so was he planning on the two of them playing Russian Roulette the whole time? There's no way he could've known that the bullet was in the last chamber, so did he really not care if he died or if Olivia blew her brains out? So much of that plan seemed improvised and last minute.
Questions pertaining to "Undercover"
Although I'm glad that someone was smart enough to put Fin in as a C.O. to keep an eye on Olivia. . . .exactly what was the protocol for doing so? Obviously they had to come up with a fake identify for him like they did Olivia, I'm just curious as to how he managed to go through that whole process in the first place. Surely he had to have been hired before they got through the process of putting together a fake profile for Olivia/Kat, then going through the process of having her arrested, charged and put in the prison system.
I know this episode was the first one to air after the writer's strike of 2007 (I believe the original airdate was mid April 2008). The dates on the title cards indicate that the course of this episode took place during the month of February (and I've figured out that there's generally a one to two month gap between when episodes are filmed and when they actually air on TV). However there is a scene where Olivia/Kat is outside in the exercise yard with the other inmates and there is no indication whatsoever that it is wintertime in New York. Was there an unseasonably warm winter happening at that time? Or was there a miscalculation between the time of year the episode was scheduled to take place and when the scenes were actually filmed?
Is Captain Harris only charged with raping Ashley Tyler by the end of the episode? Based on testimony by the other characters (and other subtle and not-so-subtle hints) it's strongly suggested that he has raped other inmates in the past as well, not to mention that the squad figured out early on the guard they were looking for had been selling drugs to inmates as well. They never said if they charged him for killing Ashley's mother either. And finally there was his assault on Olivia. . .SVU probably could've put together enough evidence to put him away for much longer than the 20 years Olivia implied he would be serving.
I realize that much of what happens in this series is very unrealistic, but who gave Olivia the 'OK' to interrogate her would-be-rapist alone? (Surely one of the conditions was him being chained to the table before she confronted him face-to-face. . . .)
Was anyone else mildly disappointed in the fact that Harris never confessed/owned up to his crimes? Often during this series the perps will eventually admit their crimes (if not outright boast about them with pride) when they know that there's all the evidence in the world to put them away. I also find it amusing when they try to "rationalize" their crimes (sometimes they're just completely sick in the head, sometimes they turn out to be victims themselves, the latter being the cause of the former). Either way, he denied everything until the end, and I found it interesting (and slightly disturbing) that even after it was beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty, he still had nothing to say for himself; like he seriously felt no remorse for his actions.
Huang's been in the show for how long and what do we know about him?
I was doing a report on Asian characters in the media and while doing a write up on George Huang I realized reading his wiki page there's probably more information about some reoccurring cast members then him, a main cast member. What do we know about him in general? He's a FBI psychologist, speaks Mandarin Chinese, a firm believer in human rights and earlier in his career he worked as a counselor for sex offenders. For awhile the only things we knew about his private life was he had a sister and grew up in a strictly traditional home (which just seemed like a ham-handed attempt at character development). Sooo...what have we got after how seasons since he first showed up? He's gay. And it's just kind of another thrown in line like Serena Southerlyn "Is this because I'm a lesbian?" (Granted there was the whole-is-he-isn't-he? going on for awhile opposed to her suddenly!LESBIAN)
This Tropette is annoyed by it too. If NOTHING else, this is a chance to score huge points with the LGBT community who want an actual gay relationship on the show, and instead they just pretend it never happened so they don't have to expand on it. Very frustrating indeed, especially considering all the storylines Benson and Stabler got.
I don't really mind the lack of expansion regarding his sexuality, as it's nice to see a show treat it as being entirely incidental rather than making a huge deal out of it. However, the absence of character develop is rather annoying.
It doesn't need expansion. He's an FBI Pyschologist. He's also asian and homosexual, but that doesn't define him (nor should it have to). They are under no obligation to "score points" with any community and if people are frustrated by it, that is their problem and has nothing to do with the actors on the show or the creators of the show. He's also a recurring character in a series highly focused on ignoring people's personal lives...it's a headscratcher as to why someone would think this is a headscratcher.
We know more about Melinda Warner and she start the same season as Huang. It would've been nice to have expanded a little on his character before B.D. Wong left the show after ten seasons. It's not about appeasing the LGBT or minority community, it's about wanting to have gotten to *known* a character we've watched for so long better. We hardly knew Dr. George Huang; personally or emotionally. This could've easily been done in just one episode that focused on his past as a former sex offender counselor and the detectives were investigating one of his former patients (which I think would've had a lot more potential that another 'ripped from the headlines' episode). And I have to disagree on what you say about the show being about ignoring people's personal lives. Look at how deeply the detectives must go into the victims', sometimes even the perps', personal lives investigating a case. If you're referring to the detectives' themselves, while the episodes may be spread out, there's plenty of them that deal with the personal lives and sometimes even the emotional issues (Rage- Elliot, Inheritance - Olivia) of the detectives.
But the show really doesn't ignore people's personal lives. We've met Stabler's family many times, Benson and Cabot have both been seen going out on dates, we've met Fin's son, and we've seen Dr. Warner dressed up for a date with her husband. The fact that Huang very rarely gets even a tiny throwaway moment like this is an Unfortunate Implications cocktail of Hide Your Gays mixed with Inscrutable Oriental.
^This. It feels exactly like hide your gays.
The show should ignore personal lives, though. I could not physically give less of a shit about Stabler's family or Olivia's mommy issues. Huang is the Only Sane Man on the show. Delving into personal drama for him is the perfect formula for destroying that.
But the show has revealed personal details without making the character's lives miserable. That's what they usually do, but not always. They could have done so with Huang (Or they could have even given him the Tragic Back Story the detectives had) but they chose not to- they decided to ignore one specific character, who also happens to be the only gay character. Unfortunate Implications, anyone?
Perhaps they're trying to avoid a "gay" episode. A common trend I've seen in TV lately is to have an episode revolve around a gay character. While that itself isn't a bad thing, they can easily come off as anvilicious or plain dumb because they often focus on the characters sexuality, as if their role on the show is to be gay rather than just be a character. Personally I think it's nice to see a show with a gay character that doesn't announce their sexuality in every episode or have some huge story that revolves around the fact that they're gay. That Huang is treated like an average guy is incredibly refreshing.
I, and other fans, don't want a gay episode, though; I want some attention paid to his private life. A mention that he has a personal life, whether that involves him being gay or not. I would be happy with him mentioning a boyfriend/husband; I would be happy with him being shown talking to his sister, mentioned all of once, in Inheritance. ("If my sister had dated a black man, my parents would have... strongly objected.") (Although, I do want to point out that the other characters don't get episodes focusing on their straightness, but they do get episodes that focus on, or at least show/imply, a romantic relationship. For George to get one for once would hardly be "gay episode" material.) It feels extremely unfortunate that in a show with a half dozen straight main characters and one gay one, the latter is the one to be completely ignored rather than any of the former. Warner, the most comparable straight character to George, has mentioned a husband multiple times, and a daughter, has mentioned a past in the Air Force, has been strongly implied to be traumatized from a hostage situation in her morgue where she was shot, has implied relationship issues that leave her lonely to the point that her dog is a main source of company, and more that I'm probably forgetting. George? He's revealed that he doesn't like quack doctors, doesn't like homophobes, has a sister, is gay and used to be counselor for sex offenders. Notice how all but two of those are related to his work life or aren't really revelations at all?
Maybe it's just me, but I got the impression that Huang's life is all there, just between the lines. He's married to the job (since he works for the FBI but always has time to consult for Manhattan SVU) and is more than happy to break the law if it means doing right by a patient, he's openly gay but has traditionally-minded parents so he probably doesn't communicate with them more than he has to. And given his early characterization as being intensely interested in studying nutjobs and the psychiatric disorders of sex offenders, he probably doesn't go out of his way to look for romantic relationships. I know we're treading into WMG territory, but I always assumed he was saving his love life for after he's retired in order to keep himself from having to balance a work life with a love life and risk having sex and home be the bridge over the gap between the two. He's seen the kind of problems Olivia and Elliot have, I can't blame him for avoiding it.
Being a psychiatrist, it makes sense that Huang would avoid mixing his personal and working lives. Professional ethics require him to respect boundaries where patients' confidentiality and sharing of private information is concerned, and he's merely applied that same standard to his dealings with co-workers whom he knows he may be called upon to analyze or vouch for in court one day. There's no extraneous socializing at work for Huang, so very little can be revealed about his habits and interests.
In "Transitions" How come when there is a man bleeding from his groin lying on the hospital bed with a fake fingernail EMBEDDED in his back, Benson automatically assumes that he is the perp?!
I mean he is nearly dead from blood loss in terrible shape and unconscious and Benson believes that he got it cause he got rough with a stripper and she put him in his place, I mean if it was a woman lying there it would have been a completely different story, she would have stayed up all night to catch the attacker and would make runs to the hospital so she could be there when the victim awoke, but no if he's got male genitalia he is the monster who got what he deserved.
Ignoring that males can be raped is one thing, but rapists whose victims are women would pretty obviously have a problem with women by default, wouldn't they? Otherwise they wouldn't be okay with having sex with them while unconscious/struggling/otherwise not consenting. Benson assumed he was the perp because the injuries suggested he was attacked in retaliation/self defense.
That's a pretty wide leap in logic; the injuries could easily have been inflicted by an offensive attacker. Who looks at someone badly injured and assumes, "He must have done something to deserve it?"
It isn't, really. It was a very specific injury to the genitals, rather than in the face or the center of the mass. Leaving aside the TV-logic that goes with it (If it wasn't related to a sex crime, why would the SVU get involved?), there aren't very many instances where a man is deliberately struck in the junk without there being some connection to his sexuality in one way or another. It's less "He must have done something to deserve it" and more "Someone must have really had a problem with this guy's dick". The go-to problem with dicks in this show? Rape. Olivia tends to be the voice of misandry, but at least in this case, she's not being irrational about it.
Is it just me, or is the show inconsistent on the whole issue of occasionally locking up or charging victims? This comes up when a victim won't cooperate with an investigation by lying or withholding evidence. The victim is charged and then offered a plea bargain wherein they cooperate in exchange for having the charges dropped.
For example, there was one episode where a woman who described having been attacked by an unknown man on the street turned out to to have been a victim of domestic violence of a very severe nature. In spite of this, the team could not get her to cooperate in staying at a safe house or enforcing a restraining order, and so she went back to her husband who stabbed her in her heart that very same night of her going back to him. They could have arrested her on filing a false police report, but someone (Cragen, I believe) came out very strongly against it. However, I have seen them do this in other episodes, one of which involved a 15-year-old girl who had been raped and later beaten, somehow in connection with nude photos of herself that she'd taken and sent using her cell phone.
I admit that the latter example is a poor one, since it involved a corrupt judge who wanted to send said girl to juvenile lock-up for possession and distribution of child pornography, i.e. pictures she'd taken of herself. But I know that there have been others where they locked up the victim for non-compliance in their investigation.
A good example is the episode where they were after the guy who attacked the same women repeatedly in order to try to get them pregnant. They arrested one of his victims who had actually become pregnant by him in order to get her to admit what had happened and consent to having genetic testing done so they could prove that their suspect was the perp. She'd reported the first rape but not the subsequent ones because she didn't want her husband to know that the baby was the rapist's, and not his, so they charged her with obstruction.
Adding to the confusion, the same issue has come up in at least one episode of Law & Order as well.
I agree, the show is inconsistent on this issue. But then again, it's a complicated question that people are prone to disagree on, and the writers of L&O are no exception. In a way it's an unintentional stroke of genius because it mirrors reality so well. In real life people don't form one opinion and stick to it forever. They rationalize, they deconstruct, and they waffle. In fiction we call that being Out of Character, but in real life it happens all the time.
In "Alien", an 8-year-old girl stabbed a 12-year-old boy with scissors. They played up the fact that he was harassing her for having lesbian parents. The reasoning was that her response (stabbing) was violently disproportionate to the stimulus (harassment) and used this to charge her, stick her in jail, and claim that she's violent. However, at one point during the investigation, it also came to light that the stabbing "victim" had grabbed her, tried to kiss her, then cut her hair off. Apparently she managed to wrestle the scissors from him and used them to stab him. Far be it from me to question the impeccable legal logic of a Law & Order episode, but that kind of sounds like self-defense against a sexual assault.
What episode did you watch? There was no sexual assault. He attacked a girl with scissors and called her a dike, and she finally retaliated. And the show portrays her in a sympathetic light; it's the prosecutors who force the detectives to arrest her and claim she's violent.
Watch closely; her statement is exactly as I said. He grabbed her and tried to kiss her, before yanking back her hair and cutting it off. Grabbing somebody and trying to kiss them is sexual assault. (Had he only grabbed her, then it would have been merely assault.) Now, the weapon she used was the same pair of scissors that he used to cut her hair; she struggled with him to get the scissors and then attacked him with them in self defense.
So, little boys trying to kiss little girls is sexual assault now? When I was a kid, we called that "recess".
12 is not a "little boy". There are 12 year old boys who are taller and bigger than me and I'm 20. And the last time I checked, it wasn't okay to kiss people when they didn't want you to. What's the difference between saying it's okay when he's 12 and saying it's okay when he's 16?
It's sad how things have changed. Still, you have to wonder if it would be sexual assault if the shoe was on the other foot.
Look, if a boy I hated called me a dyke, grabbed me, kissed me, still tried to grab me and cut my hair off, I'd call sexual assault. Especially if they made reference to it before.
There's something really weird about people defending a 12 year old kissing a 7/8 year old. That's a 7th grader (possibly 8th grader) and a 2nd grader. You don't think that MAYBE there's something wrong with that??
No, I have seen that episode recently. You got everything right except the sexual assault part that never happened.
Many people would argue that that constitutes sexual assault. Children younger than 12 have been charged with sexual assault for far less serious acts.
Yeah, I remember a case where a female teacher charged a 4 year old boy with sexual assault when he gave her a hug and his face touched her breast. There are some really crazy people out there. Sexual assault used to mean Attempted Rape. Nowadays it can mean anything up to 'excessive hug'.
A little boy kissing a little girl because he likes her is normal childhood behavior. A twelve year old forcing a seven year old to kiss him because he's trying to "cure her of being a dyke" is a goddamn hate crime.
And she never wrestled the scissors from him, him cutting her ponytail off and her stabbing him were a few days apart.
This is correct. The boy cuts off the girl's ponytail, and when she comes back to school with short hair she's made fun off for looking even more like a dyke than before. The constant teasing and abuse drives the girl to stab the boy in the back with the scissors, thus paralyzing him.
Did everyone miss the comment he made that was something like "I'll make sure she's really a girl?" That's pretty damn rapey to me.
Exactly. He makes a remark like that, tries to kiss her, she pushes him away, then he cuts off her hair to "make her look like a dyke." And before and after that encounter he was sending her emails in which he threatened to force some kind of sexual activity on her in order to make her straight. There is a difference between a little boy trying to kiss the girl he likes and what this kid was doing.
Yeah, I really don't remember the sexual assault part. Maybe I'm just not remembering things correctly, but I could've sworn that all the boy did was constantly bullying the girl for having gay parents and eventually cut her hair. Then I remember the girl finally snapping and taking the scissors used to cut her hair and then stabbing the kid. This stuff about a forced kiss is news to me. Did the episode only make a very brief mention of it or something?
Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean it wasn't there. It was actually a very big part of the episode.
You seem to not understand the difference between "I don't remember this happening. Perhaps I'm remembering things incorrectly." and "I don't remember this, so that means it didn't happen."
It happened. I watched the episode just last night - the boy DID try to kiss her. She claimed not to be a lesbian, and the boy said, "Prove it." Then went for a kiss.
He also made an implied rape threat to her in an email, were he threatened to 'cure her from being a queer'.
Was it a few days between the ponytail cutting/forced kiss and the stabbing? In that case it's not self-defense. (Even though I agree, that sounds like sexual assault). If you assault someone in revenge for them attacking you earlier, you don't get self-defense.
Sean had been picking on Emma and Charlie for months because they're being raised by two women. Sean made frequent comments to Emma of the "you're going to Hell" sort. One day he grabbed her pony tail and cut it off in the art classroom, telling her that "you're a dyke so you should look like one." Sean then tried to kiss her and Emma grabbed another pair of scissors and managed to stab him in the back. Emma became scared and got her brother Charlie, who leaves Sean outside of a hospital. We later find out about the many emails that Sean sent to Emma, and in at least one he threatens that he's going to "cure" her. When Emma admits to what she's done, she's crying and says that she didn't mean to hurt Sean and that "[she] just wanted him to leave [her] alone." Emma was a scared seven year old child, not a violent criminal.
Legal matters aside, Sean deserved it. I'd have arrested him for assault and sent him to the soap droppers
He deserved to become a paraplegic? I mean, maybe time in Juvie sure, what he did to Emma was definitely assault, sexual or not, but Goddamn.
He may not have specifically deserved to become a paraplegic, but he did deserve the consequences of pushing a little girl around until she snapped on him, whatever they would have been. If you set out to bully someone, whatever they do to protect themselves from you is on your own head. What he did was a kiddy version of attempted corrective rape and the very definition of a hate crime, and it was fully condoned by all the authority figures around him! She stabbed him because he had been making her miserable for months and then physically attacked her, but the blame immediately went to Emma's lesbian parents for putting her in a position to be bullied. The fact that Sean shouldn't have acted like such a little piece of shit is completely ignored. So not only does he learn that lesbians are acceptable targets, he also learns that girls (especially smaller and weaker ones) have no right to refuse his advances or defend themselves if he assaults them. His being paralyzed from the waist down is probably going to save the Special Victims Unit a lot of work in the future.
I think that Emma didn't deserve to be bullied and I think that Sean didn't deserve to become a paraplegic. I also think that people who claim that either of the children deserved what they got are sick (sorry but sending a twelve year old boy to "soap droppers)?.
Our 'Shocking Swerve' entry refers to an episode where Elliot puts a guy away in Rikers, then after that guy is exonerated by someone else who confesses, the real perp dies. The ADA tells them they can't get the guy out now because the real perp isn't available to confess. But in 'Criminal', the exact same case arises: they put a guy away, and it turns out he's innocent; the difference is that once they figure out who the real perp is, they get the guy out almost immediately. Wat?
Two possible explanations come to mind; however, I imagine this was just an oversight on the part of the writers:
I can't remember that one ref'd in Shocking Swerve, but it could have been that the only evidence implicating the real perp was his willingness to confess. Maybe they hadn't yet contracted a confession from him and had no evidence besides that? Still, it seems a bit weak.
They couldn't free the wrongfully convicted man based on the advice of that ADA who had a lot more friction with the main cast and who eventually lost her job for showing up to court drunk. When they successfully freed the guy in "Criminal", Novak was the ADA. Could be that the former ADA just didn't care enough to get thing moving.
They had forensic evidence in addition to the confession in "Criminal"; in "Shocking Swerve," all that had happened was that Stabler had personal knowledge of another person's guilt. He arranged for the guilty person to make a formal confession, but he had not yet done so. Once he died, the only evidence of his guilt was Stabler's say-so. The confession was on tape, but it was an audiotape, not a videotape, and had not been authenticated, which is to say, the person making the confession had not signed a notarized paper acknowledging that it was he on the tape, or otherwise signed a transcription of the confession. The big deal for Stabler in "Shocking Swerve" is that he jumped the gun in telling the innocent person he would be released, before his release was in any way secured. It might seem as though in the other episode the prisoner was out "almost immediately," but that has more to do with the way the show compresses time, and omits or expands scenes or details for dramatic reasons.
Do the writers really expect the audience to think of Stabler and Benson as professional and respectable cops?
Why not? Being professional doesn't mean not having feelings. Imagine if they didn't actually have that flaw... I'm already hearing cries of "MARY SUE!"
Having feelings is not the problem, the constant rule breaking and assault is, I know they try and justify it by saying I Did What I Had to Do, but doing stuff like physically attacking a kid that had gotten in a fight with the detectives son and groping the genitalia of a male suspect during interrogation to get him to confess, are not the things professional and respectable cops do
Agreed, the problem for me is that there are never any long-term repercussions for all of their clearly illegal actions. The cops in this show have probably broken the law more times than all of their suspects combined. Immunity to firing is not a very believable form of Plot Armor.
Not to mention freakin' STALKING rape victims until they finally agree to file a report. That, or stalking suspects with little to no real evidence beyond a "gut feeling". Olivia is the absolute worst for this.
First of all, they want them to be emotional human beings that the average joe can relate to. Secondly, they want to evoke all the emotions that rape usually evokes in people. So the main characters have to react strongly to that, probably more so than is realistic for actual cops. And thirdly, going against the rules is such a staple (no pun intended) of cop shows, it's pretty much unavoidable. Especially if the show loves its open ends and some gray/gray morality. So I think they want us to think about the dilemma and emotional torment that goes with having to watch intense violence every day and sometimes being kept from solving problems the easy way by "those stupid rules" (aka the law...).
We know that rape is a horrible crime that is the whole basis of the show and I canít imagine going through that without some consequences. The problem is that Benson and Stabler are incompetent idiots. Thatís the only logical explanation for constantly missing or out right ignoring key evidence. Heck how many peoples lives would have been saved if they had just followed police procedure which would have taken far less time then the stupid things they were doing.
Take the episode Savant for example they were told that they would get the dna evidence proving weather or not the husband tried to kill his wife in a day. Instead of waiting they decided to go around his neighborhood and tell everyone that he killed wife. So even if heís proven innocent he becomes a pariah. Then after being told point blank that he had left long before his wife was killed they still tried to arrest because after finding out that she had been cheating on him and was pregnant with the other guys baby he slapped her before leaving in a fit of rage. There you go they ignored a witness and disregarded DNA evidence.
Burned could have been solved in 5 minutes not only did they know that she lied about the abuse they had DNA evidence proving that he didnít sleep with her that day. They had the number and address of her boyfriend their police officers this is a case he was the only one who could prove who was lying. Further more heís a lawyer so he knows he has to tell the truth instead they decided to let him come to them when he fills like it.
In trade they let a proven murderer just walk out of the room incidentally getting two people killed.
I can even go so far to claim theyíre dirty using there incompetence given the number of people who have died or been beaten just for pissing them off.
In Closet Olivia got a man beaten and ruined his career all because she didnít understand the significance of being a gay football player that level of ignorance alone should have gotten her fired.
Olivia isn't responsible for people being intolerant assholes. She didn't incite or encourage anyone to harm anyone else.
The same thing happened in Haystack a single mother acting like a young single mother and not knowing how to react to her child getting kidnapped caused Eliot to stop trying to look for the child and instead look for evidence to arrest her for killing her baby. He than gave knowledge of the case to a sleezy reporter. The trauma of losing her child added to the reporter crucifying her caused the mother to kill herself and Eliot is never disciplined.
What takes the case however is Taken even after finding out that everything was a con they still asked what the suspectís role was. Then after being told the ovbious they left him in jail knowing that his life was in danger because it would take at least 24 hours to get him out.
He eventually is killede and this allows them to arrest the conman. The problom with this is that off the top of my head there is solitary confinement, protective custady, hell even telling the prisonors he was framed would have helped. Because he only had such a hard time in prison because they thought he was a violent child rapist. So either the cops are incredibly stupid or they left him to die so they could make their case. Being emotional and headstrong in a touchy situation is onething being stupid and incompatent is another.
How is that their fault? They don't have any control over the department of corrections or the policies that govern the release or housing of convicts.
In 'Baggage', a serial rapist was caught in the act of attempting to hog-tie a woman in what turned out to be a police sting. But because they couldn't indisputably connect him with the earlier crimes, they had to let him walk. Um, what? Didn't they just catch him in a sting with clear intent to commit rape?
That episode had quite a few problems; I wrote a small rant about their treatment of a suspect which included a large amount of Police Brutality and denying him a lawyer and resulted in the poor man committing suicide instead spending more time with SVU. Other things include being uncooperative with the detective that had been working the case for six month because they thought he would take all the glory for it, finding killer by finding his sisters dna in a non criminal database, and that they finally convicted him by saying that the victim used more electricity than usual that day proved he used a kilm to set her on fire.
From what I remember, the guy opened the window or something so the victims body would decompose slightly faster and make it seem like she was killed on a day he was visiting his mom. The judge then said if they couldn't prove he wasn't at his moms house, she'd dismiss the entire case against him.
Actually, victim's body was left in her own ceramics studio which contained a kiln. The perp activated the kiln to heat the room, thereby quickening decomposition, which had the effect of making it seem like she'd been killed a couple days earlier. But he also knew that the CSU and ME would be able to compensate for the effects of the kiln in their analysis if they happened to walk in while the room was still very hot, so he went back later to shut down the kiln; he opened the window to release the heat. The more ya know!
Did Olivia or Melanie shoot Abraham in "Charisma"?
Melanie did. I can see why you'd be confused because of the camera angle, but based on their reactions, and Melanie's dialogue explaining why she pulled the trigger at that particular moment, it's apparent that it's Melanie who fired the shot. That takes a careful viewing, though, because the camera isn't on Melanie when she does it.
I thought they intentionally tried to confuse you but ultimately it was supposed to be Melanie, except Olivia grabbed the gun by the barrel afterwards before tossing it aside. Shouldn't it have been hot to the touch if it was just fired?
Actually, given the situation, a little heat (or even hand burn) isn't the problem she'd be focused on.
Seriously, why hasn't Cragen transferred Stabler and Benson out of SVU by now?
Yeah, we know the "real" reason, but in-story it makes no sense that Cragen would keep two ticking time bombs like them on the roster. ESPECIALLY Elliot "Punch first and ask questions when forced" Stabler.
It may have something to do with the fact that Elliot and Olivia are the SVU's best detectives, according to both their case completion rates and at LEAST one psychiatrist who spoke to Cragen after their psychological reviews.
Where did Casey get that t-shirt?
The "Sex Crimes" one in "Night".
NYPD Softball league.
Why, when Olivia is shown as being really traumatized by events in Undercover over several episodes, did they not show Casey not even being vaguely freaked out or upset by events in Night (discounting the scene in the hospital), Raw or Alternate?
Because people respond differently to trauma and not everyone reacts the same. It's also possible that she did have trauma but the show didn't see fit to feature it, as they tend to do with characters not named Stabler or Benson.
In Night, Elliot mentions that Casey has taken time off work and doesn't want anyone to see her while she's out; that sounds like she's upset.
In "Authority", how come Munch never commented on how Merritt Rook looked a hell of a lot like an older version of a man in Baltimore whose wife got shot?
I know it goes way beyond Celebrity Paradox (celebrity who guest starred on two shows in the same continuity as different characters paradox?), but that would have been a (darkly) funny moment if he did. Hopefully this could happen if "Authority" gets a sequel... And I'm fairly certain it will.
They never mention when actors pop back up again. Diane Neal (Casey) played a rapist in a previous episode, and no one mentions how the new A.D.A. resembles a prior perp.
Not limited to SVU, either. Jerry Orbach played a defense attorney in an early episode of the main L&O before being cast as Lenny Briscoe. Alfred Molina was a perp on SVU before becoming one of the main characters of L&O: LA.
S. Epatha Merkerson was a cleaning woman who was the mother of a victim in an early episode of regular L&O. Plus, there are non-celebrity actors who have popped up repeatedly. Anne Dowd is a character actor who had played nine very different characters over all the different series. Some perps, some victims, some witnesses, some background characters. Denis O'Hare played six, including two priests, a schizophrenic who represented himself, and a retarded man who ended up institutionalized. Lindsay Crouse played a judge who was shot and paralyzed, and then sued for her right to die, before the person who shot her was brought to trial. McCoy opposed her, because he wanted her as a witness. She eventually does die. Then she shows up six years later as another judge, plus, she is on SVU as a third judge. Peter Francis James played a judge on several eps of SVU, was a suspect's father on an episode of CI, and was a judge again (but not the same one) on L&O. Think of it as a repertory theater.
Practically speaking, that was one case out of thousands that Munch worked for a few days in a different city entirely almost a decade and a half ago that he wasn't even the primary investigator on. There's a good chance he didn't even remember the other guy, and why would he? Who remembers the exact facial details of people they barely knew one time over a decade ago?
Why did the episode "Doubt" end with the viewers left to decide on what the verdict was? All evidence obviously pointed to the man being innocent and the girl committing perjury.
A poll was held and more than 60% of the viewers sided with the professor.
I think the idea was supposed to be that with a case like that, which was nothing more than he said/she said, things aren't clear-cut. So they decided not to actually give the ending.
In Real Life, a lot of cases do end up like this because of insufficient or conflicting evidence.
Well I don't know, I mean I think they tipped it just slightly toward making the alleged victim a shakier witness than the alleged perp, just to convey the idea that the emotional trauma of rape may cause the victim to become very unstable and difficult to believe, leading to a mistrial or not guilty verdict. Somewhat inadvertently then, in that sense, the person who posted this topic reflects in their question that intent of the writers.
The interesting thing about that episode was that it exposed each individual viewer's subconscious prejudices. Those who believe rape victims should act a certain way or remember details correctly will side with the professor, while those who have difficulty accepting that a woman could lie about being raped will side with her. In reality, the episode didn't give enough information to determine who was telling the truth. The only unbiased answer would be "I don't know which side to believe".
What broke that woman's credibility with this troper was her accusing Elliot of groping her when he dropped her off at home and her attorney used his separation from his wife as evidence to support. Even if Elliot was separated from his wife and kids, the guy is more than professional enough to NOT GROPE A VICTIM!
If she had been raped, then that would have happened after she had been traumatized, on top of being physically exhausted, medicated, and possibly still inebriated. Eliot took her home because she could barely stay on her feet. The attorney brought the issue to trial, and it's implied that she came up with the accusation as a strategy when Myra told her that Elliot escorted her home.
In Dependent the guy that Elliot killed could not have been the rapist and murderer.
When the little boy gets home his father is attacked from behind, he then runs across the house into his parents' bed room and sees someone else raping and killing his mother. He later identifies the monster that attacked his dad as his sister's boyfriend and he said he also saw his sister there. Also, why would a man need an object like a candlestick holder to rape somebody, if he was as high as they said he was I doubt he would have worried about leaving DNA. Finally they made remarks earlier that the person who did it had anger issues with the mother and it was a personal crime yet the boyfriend had never meet her before. It seems the only thing they were able to prove was that the boyfriend was also there and attacked the father, but since Elliot accidentally killed him they decided to pin the crime on him and let the girl that raped and killed her own mother go free.
As far as I know, Elliot did not "accidentally kill" the boyfriend. Warner had confirmed there was something wrong when she examined the body, saying the boyfriend stopped taking medication. I haven't seen the episode for a while, but it was something along those lines.
But Elliot did kill him, the kid not taking his medicine just made it a lot easier for him to do it.
Warner's assessment was that the kid had quit taking his heart medicine, which controlled a palpation syndrome; without the medicine, he suffered a heart attack due to the pursuit and confrontation with Elliot. Although he was attacking Elliot at the time of his heart attack, Warner determined that Elliot's return blows were not the culprit; it was just being in that situation caused a heart attack. (Or maybe something more technical, but that was the gist of it anyway.)
Being high is a good enough reason someone might need to rape someone with a candlestick holder instead of performing the act themselves. Some people don't have as easy a time performing when they're drunk or high.
Well even if they don't need to use a candlestick, if he was as high as they said, then he may have just been in a delirious state of mind, which can cause ... very erratic, bizarre, and unpredictable behavior.
Also the story the girl gave was full of holes and contradicts evidence from earlier that episode. She was telling them what happened during a drug induced blackout which she should have no memories of with the help of sodium amytal a drug that Huang had said in an earlier episode is useless for truth telling and memory recovery. It is usually used to get the person to say what the questioner wants to hear and they gave it to her after constantly asking if she remembers her boyfriend raping and killing her mom.
NY State hasn't performed the death penalty in decades. Can someone tell the SVU that?
Every episode has the ADA threatening the death penalty. Which NY hasn't used since 1963. Then one episode revolved around a man wanting to go back to his home state to be given the death penalty. What?
Law and Order may be based in a place that's a lot like New York, but it really isn't. All Myths Are True, republicans have magical powers, the death penalty exists in New York, and the government experimented on inner city black kids.
Actually one of the suspects did mention that NY hasn't used the Death Penalty in years, but the detectives handwaved it by saying that they could make an exception.
Except they can't make an exception now. It's gone beyond just not being used now- the state of New York declared the Death Penalty unconstitutional in 2004. Nobody can use the Death Penalty anymore. It might just be a case of the ADA or Elliot trying to use ignorance about the death penalty in Perp Sweating to make the guy talk, letting them think they could be sent to the chair if they don't do exactly what they say (Jerkass behavior and bullying like this isn't unheard of for the show). Of course, that doesn't explain why they use it when there are other laywers present....
In the L&O universe, New York has had an execution in the past couple of years. It was shown on-screen in the main series, and was the subject of the sixth-season finale (the same episode where Claire was killed by a drunk driver).
Having the death penalty in the show gives the viewers a sense of closure. Plus, it's an easy plot device for the writers to fall back on when a character needs motivation to share information. This is L&O, creativity need not apply.
In a recent episode, Elliot told a suspect who said NY hasn't done the death penalty in years that he could still be convicted of a capital crime and have to sit around until they change the legislation.
New York did briefly restore the Death Penalty, and did sentence some people to it, although no one was ever executed. So the regular L&O, "Teenage Wasteland," where Nora Lewin debates whether to do what she believes is right, and not ask for the death penalty, or to do her job, and ask for it, as it has recently been reinstated, is actually very good. Now, while no one has been executed in New York in many decades, the death penalty exists in statute. This means that a DA can ask for someone to be sentenced to it. What is currently unconstitutional in any method of execution. It is possible that at some future date, a method will be adopted which will be constitutional in New York, and theoretically, someone sentenced to death in 2004-2011 could be executed. It's pretty likely that a lawyer would argue that since the person under sentence wasn't sentenced to the method under question, they can't be executed by that method, and that would probably work, given the reluctance of the state to use capital punishment, but it is all theoretical.
L&O is set in New York. Aside from the fact that Mayor Giuliani made a guest appearance, and the 9/11 terrorist attack happened there, there are other very specific things mentioned. When the detectives are in Central Park, they correctly talk about going "down" to Alphabet City, or "over" to Riverside Dr. They talk about real subway stops, and even eat at real restaurants. It's actually one of the most accurately-depicted cities on TV.
Plus, even though the New York Court of Appeals had declared the death penalty unconstitutional, a future Court could reverse that decision. True, a judge who sentences a person to death will stay the sentence indefinitely due to the Court of Appeals's ruling, but who wants to be the test case for revisiting that question?
As mentioned, the original Law & Order actually had a few of the defendants go on to be executed within the context of the show. Aside from the one that was shown in the episode Claire died, there was a woman who shot a cop and later converted to Christianity while on death row, and probably a few more besides that. I was actually coming here to post a headscratcher about the episode where the defendant claims New York hasn't executed anyone since the sixties; while true in real life it isn't true via the show's continuity.(Before anyone says the guy could have just been uninformed, Casey confirmed it, and she should know better.)
Whatever happened to Finn wanting a transfer because of Elliot's general douchebaggery? I feel like it was mentioned once and just magically never brought up again.
The transfer paperwork was held up due to red tape. The guy handling his paperwork was an ex-colleague of Finn's who held a grudge against him, and stalled his transfer to get back at him. All of this was mentioned at some point in season ten. They haven't said anything since, so I guess we're to assume that one guy can stall his paperwork indefinitely. The whole thing about Finn wanting a transfer was probably done as a cliffhanger, in order to draw in viewers and boost ratings. Kind of a lazy and cheap ploy, but there you have it.
Actually it was mentioned in the first episode of the new season (And from his reaction of being told to work with Stabler, they were still not at the best of terms).
The episode Babes in general.
First off, a guy kills someone because he thinks he raped his sister. It confuses me that anyone would do this without investigating anyones side of the story.
People act without thinking all of the time, especially if they're enraged. A significant portion of real-life murder cases involve this kind of thing. Would you be level-headed enough to get the other side of the story if you believed a loved one had been raped?
Then, a girl appears to commit suicide. In an earlier episode, they find out that someone who appears to have hung herself was strangled and then hung up. But here, they make no effort to investigate this, and instead go after a woman who insulted her over the internet.
Blame the idiot ball for this one.
At the end, when the mom gets off, Greylek insults her enough to get the mom to attack her. Then Greylek says she's gonna get her for assault. Any sensible person in the room would ignore these charges and report Greylek to the ethics committee or whatever. Instead, we see the moms daughter crying that her mom is going to jail.
As far as Greylek provoking the mom, provocation is not a legal defense to assault and battery (which is what the mom did), and what Greylek did did not violate the ethics rules for lawyers. IIRC, Greylek said that the jury may have found the mom not guilty, but that doesn't make her blameless, and that the general public would realize that, to which the mom responded by hitting her. The mom's trial had already concluded, and what happened could not prejudice a jury, cause a mistrial, or otherwise affect her case. At worst, the mom might have an entrapment defense (which rarely works, because you have to prove that an ordinarily law-abiding person was lured/baited/provoked by law enforcement into committing the specific crime) and, while YMMV, what Greylek said may not be considered offensive enough to be considered an ethics violation or to provoke a physical assault.
Something that just bugs me to no end. In "Manogamy," if Nicole had been sexually active with both Richard and her lover around the same time, why on Earth would she tell Richard he wasn't the father of her child? There was no possible way she could have known that and she turned out to be wrong
She's an idiot who doesn't know how how conception dates work, leading her to either miscalculate them, or assume that they're accurate down to the exact day (in reality, there's a margin of error of a couple of weeks, so if even if she didn't have sex with her husband on the estimated date of conception, he could still be the father).
Some nonsense about woman's intuition, as if a woman can feel who the father is.
Wishful thinking. She wanted to have the baby with her lover, not her husband.
She wants to hurt one of the possible fathers.
In Ridicule, why is Elliot, the male cop, unsupportive of the man who is claiming to have been raped by women, while Olivia, the female cop, defends him from the people they question and the other male detectives?
Because Elliot and the other male detectives didn't believe it was possible for a man to be raped by a woman. Yeah, they were holding the Idiot Ball that week.
The issue is why only females support the notion that men can be raped by women in this episode.
Both Dr. Huang and Captain Cragen supported the man and Munch didnít really say anything about it. The only people who attacked him and claimed he was making it up were Elliot and Fin who are both giant Jerkasses
In my experience (which admittedly isn't enough to be definitive), I've noticed that men usually are less likely to be sympathetic when a man is raped by a woman. Whether that's reflective of the overall population, I have not idea.
Why include Huang, Warner, Munch, Fin, and Cragen in the opening credits if they appear in 25% of episodes, and for only 5 minutes in those episodes?
They still appear frequently enough to be considered part of the main cast. Cragen is the captain, plenty of reason to be in the opening credits. Munch and Fin are still important detectives, and in Munch's case, around the whole show. Warner is their go-to ME for every dead body they find, and Huang interviews every suspect/defendant that seems to have issues.
In that episode with the trans* woman, why do they assume that both she and the boyfriend planned a killing of his brother and that the boyfriend knew she was born a boy?
Even Huang, the smart one, said something like "She's the master here, so break the other one first."
In Turmoil how come Olivia assumes Alex is the one who reported her and Elliot for misconduct and not the kid they assaulted a few hours earlier
In Turmoil Captain Cragen is reprimanded and suspended because of actions by Elliot and Olivia. Olivia blames Alex for it and claims she turned her back on them. Why douse she think that Alex was the one who reported there misbehaver, when a few scenes earlier Elliot was seen jumping and beating a teenager while she stood around and watched. Elliot even identified himself to the kid. I think it would be more reasonable of her to assume it was the kid complaining about being attacked by 2 detectives. Also I do not remember if Cragen was removed before or after Elliot attacked his son in the squad room with Olivia again just standing around and watching (luckily for Richard his mother was there to stop his father). If it happened afterwards then there is a whole room of witnesses that might have turned Elliot in.
In Baggage who on the team was leaking info to the press.
I know this episode has already been mentioned twice on this page but in it the thing the chief of detectives seemed angriest about was that one of the detectives was talking to the press and giving them classified information. He gave Cragen an ultimatum to find this person but nothing ever came of it.
There are always a gazillion people running around in the background in the squad room, chances are that one of them leaked it.
A later episode has Dale take "credit" for it. He thought Stabler would appreciate the glory.
In Outcry, the press wants to use a video of the victim at a party and they say the cops can't prevent them from airing it because of the First Amendment. If I recall correctly, the Supreme Court ruled that the press can't withhold evidence in a police investigation, so why was this an issue?
Because SVU exists in a universe where laws exist solely for the purpose of making the NYPD's lives harder, apparently.
In "Bullseye" why didnít they ask the little girl anything about her rapist?
She was alive and functioning through out the episode, I know the child was traumatized but if they asked her to describe something about her attacker she might have said young, longhaired or Scottish, which would have ruled out the innocent man whose life they ruined and was Driven to Suicide. Instead they never even showed her a picture of the man and need the kid to pee on the floor before considering the dead man might be innocent.
The attacker had a ski mask or something on, so they couldn't see any of his features. They could have done a voice ID, but at that point they thought they had the guy since he had the pictures of the rapes on his computer. Sure, they were hacked on by the real perp, but still...
In the episode Identity there are two twins, and one of them is really a boy even though he's been made to look like a girl since he was unintentionally castrated when he was circumcised. The doctor handling them was molesting them and the twins kill him, by having one of them stay at a movie theatre and the other kill him so they can't use their DNA to identify which one of them did it. But the mutilated one had been on drugs for years to make him look like a girl, so that would show up in any DNA samples at the scene!
Besides the above plot hole, there's also how the team treated the situation when they found out. They chew out the parents a little bit until they understand it was an accident, although they're in a bit of a corner because they spent the whole episode telling the "girl" that she couldn't have been orally raped because the DNA they got off the perp (who had died after "she" bit down and he fell off a roof, don't ask) was male. So how do they handle this sensitive information that he's been living his entire life as the opposite gender? Why, the doctor's nurse barges in and flat out says that he's really a boy. But instead of treating this as a serious situation, where the nurse would be sued for causing god knows what level psychological distress, the detectives support her for telling the truth. Even though it would later get the molesting doctor killed, showing that the twins did not take this revelation well.
Gender drug therapy doesn't affect DNA, it affects hormones. His chromosomes would still be male, regardless of how many hormones his parents gave him.
Yeah, but traces of the drugs would show up in whatever secretions/body parts they tested for DNA. So they could just run those tests after the DNA and find out which twin it was.
They dealt with that. It was explicitly stated that enough time had passed since he stopped taking the hormone therapy that it had worked it's way out of his system by the time of the murder.
However, they just said "perfect crime" and gave up without at least trying or jailing them both for conspiracy after the fact.
It would have been a waste of time to charge them with anything, since the simple fact that the other one could have done it is more than enough for reasonable doubt.
Except you don't have to prove which one killed him. To prove conspiracy, you only have to prove that one of them killed him(easily done, given the DNA), and then argue that they worked together, one killing him and the other creating an alibi. Conspiracy to commit murder carries the same penalty as murder.
True, but in order to make a case for conspiracy, you also have to prove that they did, in fact, work together, which is a lot more difficult that one might think. For one thing, just because one twin's trip to the theater happened to create an alibi for the other twin doesn't automatically mean they planned it that way. While I'd say it probably wasn't a coincidence, the point here is that it could be one, which creates reasonable doubt on the conspiracy front. Without evidence of actual cooperation between them (A verbal or written agreement, for instance), any two-bit defense attorney could get an acquittal.
Hand the case off too McCoy. He's prosecuted people for conspiracy on less than this and won.
For one, why reuse an episode title from the main series? Two, how do you have an expectation of privacy when you are intimidating the owner into letting you stay? What happened to inevitable discovery? Why not hold the guy on the stolen credit card? Can't you do a paternity test on the woman the criminal is taunting and try her mom's case? Also, very awkward casting.
For the first one, it's a different series, so I think they can do that if they want. The rest, I got no clue.
The thing that annoyed me was that they didn't think to check his last cell mate until partway through the episode, yet my first thought (and that of the people watching it with me) was, "Check out who he went to prison with, and see if anyone got out recently, idiots!" The detectives suck at their jobs these days. Also, can you even make someone a legal guardian without getting their permission first?
An explanation for why they didn't check at first could be that they were so pissed off at the guy for shooting at them they didn't care about anything he had to say. Once they calmed down a bit, they checked his old cell mate.
What happened to Jo Marlowe?
Yes I know she was a Creator's Pet and everyone hated her and blablabla... But why is there no in-universe explanation for why she left? The new season starts and we see this random new ADA without any explanation.
Can't speak for anyone else, but I've never been a fan of the Benson/Stabler ship and I actually liked Dani, but I disliked Marlowe from the get-go. She was self-righteous, she treated everyone else like crap, the character dominated the show as soon as she turned up, and Sharon Stone's acting was abysmal. There was nothing likeable about the character whatsoever — I liked Stuckey better than I liked her. That being said, I was annoyed that we didn't get an explanation for her sudden absence, despite being glad she's gone.
Just how old is Calvin supposed to be?
The kid looks, sounds and acts like he's around 12, maybe a year or two younger, yet they occasionally have him do something that only a kid much younger would do — drawing that picture in art class is already an odd thing to do for a kid his age, and it doesn't help that it looks like it was drawn by a 7-year-old. Olivia calling him "sweetie" doesn't help, either. Any kid over the age of 9 would resent that. I would chalk it up to SVU being clever and having him regress to childlike behaviors, since he never got to experience being a little kid with his mother, but there is zero confirmation of this in-universe — they act like he's being a totally normal kid. Which leads me to...
I remember having free-drawing in my sixth grade art classes, and I can't even draw much better ten years later. It may be a bit sappy, but not neccessarily out of character. Also, "regressing"? I don't know where you're getting that from. He seemed perfectly normal, even if he had some abandonment issues.
Considering his crappy childhood and abandonment problems, he was probably just supposed to be working out the kind of childlike expressions that never got him anywhere as a kid by taking a second crack at it. Media can't write kids for crap in general, but Calvin and Olivia got along as well as they did because they were giving each other what they needed at the same somewhat-stunted level. They were both too old to be acting the way they were to each other, but because it was so new and they were both enthusiastic about it, it worked out.
All through out the episode where the teenage pedophile (Who has yet to commit a crime, mind you) turns himself in, the detectives are going on about how "no one is born a deviant" but then Olivia tells the kids mom "You didn't make him a pedophile. That's who he is." So...um...what?
The differences are that the detectives were saying, "No one is born a deviant," or, "No one is born a child molester." No one starts off life automatically molesting children. Performing those acts is a conscious choice. When Olivia says, "You didn't make him a pedophile. That's who he is," she's saying that his sexual attractions were that way the moment he was born, in the same way someone is born gay or straight. Being a pedophile and being a child molester are not the same thing. Having urges and desires is very different from acting on them. The main problem with this episode is that despite these differences, the detectives treat the kid who tries to get help for his urges like someone who has already committed a crime, thus negating their own point.
"Doubt": Novak's closing argument
In it, she said something to the effect of "Why would the victim accuse the professor if he weren't guilty?" Logical Fallacies Casey: assuming that all things being equal the alleged victim was telling the truth, didn't she make a false complaint of sexual harassment against Detective unStabler? Why would she have accused him of touching her if the video footage we saw of him catching her innocently on the apartment steps was clearly doctored to fool the viewers?
Actually it was more her saying that why would the victim go through all of the embarrassment and hell of a trial if she wasn't telling the truth but point taken.
Don't think I've seen the episode you're talking about, but if you can raise large enough concerns about the legitimacy of the police working the case (such as finding evidence of racism, excessive violence, planting evidence, etc.), it can throw their entire investigation into doubt. During the OJ Simpson trial, doubt was cast on the legitimacy of the case because of taped evidence of some of the detectives using racial slurs in an unrelated case. If the defense attorney working the case could draw attention to the mountains of misconduct the SVU detectives perform week after week, it would cast doubts on the whole affair.
The episode ''Strain
Ok, so a man kills two homosexuals because they carry a rare and dangerous type of AIDs (oh, and one of them infected his late brother), yet people feel sympathetic because the guy claims he was "preventing" further infections. No court in real life would say "He's got a point, let's let him go."
So they say it's ok to kill people with rare diseases so they can't infect others?
Well ok, then let's kill a pedophile and his entire family, clearly his vile genes might activate in his children and make them predators.
While I'm not bugged much by the end (though you'd think 15 years seems a bit too light for killing two people), it's still ludicrous to think that any sane, logical human would be "Hmm, clearly killing these people will prevent further infections."
There are two things wrong with what you said:
The guy was going around having unprotected sex with a bunch of other men despite the fact that he was infected with a very deadly strain of AIDS. The fact that he had the disease wasn't the problem, but the things he was carelessly doing with it. The show made a point of the fact that people need to be responsible when it comes to sex with strangers. The thing is that worried the main cast was that the jury would ignore the fact that both parties are responsible for their actions and that anyone who got infected by that man was a moron for not taking proper precautions.
A pedophile isn't automatically a child predator since pedophilia is merely a sexual attraction and not all of them are exclusively attracted to prepubescents. Being biologically related to a pedophile does not most likely make you one.
And you clearly didn't read the thing properly. I said it was ridiculous how they try to crucify the dead man like he was a monster. Yes, it was irresponsible to not tell his potential partners. But that hardly makes the murder justified. And the thing with the pedophile was a jab at the ignorant opinion that "Oh, there is something wrong with this person, let's persecute and destroy them before they bring harm to us."
What that man was doing wasn't irresponsible, it was criminal. He knew he was infected with a highly aggressive strain of a fatal STD and he knowingly had unprotected sex with people and infected them. If a single person he infected died of the disease before him, then legally he would have been guilty of second degree murder. The only difference between what he was doing and what someone on a shooting spree does is that his method takes longer. The original L&O tried and convicted someone for attempted murder for doing the same thing((albeit, straight guy and women)), likewise, SVU has arrested a guy for knowingly spreading AIDS. Granted, it is highly debatable whether or not this makes this man's murder justifiable in a moral sense, and it certainly doesn't excuse it under the law, but don't try excusing reprehensible behavior because the man happens to have a disease.
Don't they have metal detectors?
Is it just me, or is the Manhattan SVU precinct the most dangerous place to be in the city? It seems that every other week, some perp pulls a gun or a knife. I get that all the cops carry guns, but shouldn't they at least have civilians walk through metal detectors on the way in? My middle school shouldn't have tighter security than a police station.
Is it just me, or do the detectives on the show straddle the line between sting operations and entrapment? Every other time they set up some poor schmuck I end up wondering whether what the police are doing is actually legal.
Can you give an example?
I can give an example. In one episode, a convicted child molester is released from prison. After a young woman is raped, the cops assumed he did it. So Stabler decides to go undercover as just released convicted child molester as well to see if he did. Stabler decided it was a good idea to coax the guy back to the slammer. In the end, the guy fell off the wagon and kidnapped the girl. Stabler saves the girl and kills the molester. Of course, the molester DID in fact call out Stabler on his assuming nature for basically trapping him to rape again. Not only that, but the fact that the guy is now dead, we never learn if he did in fact rape the other girl.
IIRC, Stabler had just given up on testing the guy when he showed up in a van with a party in the back, so to speak. The whole thing is morally dubious, cause SVU.
Entrapment is a defense that works much more often in television than in real life. In answer to your question, use the following standard (which is the actual legal standard for entrapment: Law enforcement lures, baits, or provokes an ordinarily law-abiding person into committing a crime that he would not have committed but for the government intervention. This is how undercover sting operations, such as drug buys, work.
Were he still alive, the above defendant wouldn't have a case for entrapment because ultimately, he took the girl of his own free will. While you could make the argument that he might not have if Elliot hadn't set himself up as the perfect partner in crime, it's clear from those events that Elliot didn't actually force him to do it. That said, it seems like SVU was going out of their way to ruin the guy's shot at rehabilitation, which certainly says something about their moral character.
Harassment or Good Detective Work?
This may be a case of Truth in Television, but how much investigating can the police do if the victim does not want to report the crime? It's true that they just have the victim's best interests at heart, but it seems like in a lot of the episodes Benson and Stabler (usually Benson) really cross the line and are just flat-out harassing the victims. I can't even count how many episodes start out with a girl waking up in the hospital after being attacked, only to refuse to cooperate with or lend anything to the investigation. And every single time the detectives (again, usually Benson) browbeat her until she agrees, sometimes going as far as arresting them for some minor charge in order to get them to cooperate. And their favorite line to use is "if you don't help us he's just going to do this again to some other poor girl," which is an extremely manipulative way of essentially saying that the well-being of any potential victim is in the current victim's hands.
Huang saying that he thinks Drew is lying in "Privilege"
Okay, so Drew is suspected of murdering his former girlfriend. He takes a polygraph in an effort to prove his innocence. He passes with flying colors. Haung explains that while he display a "guilty" (read: deceptive) response on a control question about stealing from a friend, he displays a truthful response on the question about whether he murdered Carmen Trancoso. Huang says that he suspects that Drew manipulated his physiological response to the control questions so that his guilty response wouldn't stick out when he answered the relevant questions. When asked if the graph readout could mean that Drew actually is telling the truth, Huang admits "It could, but I think he's lying." That's it. The whole explanation of his point of view is "I think he's lying." At no point does he present a single piece of evidence that contradicts the polygraph's verdict of truth. So, Dr. Huang, it's okay to completely ignore established evidence in favor a gut feeling?
Firstly: Polygraph tests don't produce established evidence, they produce test results that have to be verified and interpreted by the tester, just like any other. Huang's statement (that he, the tester, thought Drew was being deceptive, but the polygraph didn't catch it) is saying the test is inconclusive and therefore useless.
Secondly: Drew was lying, and Huang was right not to blindly trust the machine.
Well, okay, but the fact that Huang turned out to be right about Drew lying doesn't make it any more reasonable for him to have assumed that in the first place, especially since he even admitted that the results could just as easily be interpreted to mean that Drew was being truthful. (See above). It almost seems like he said that because the writers needed a reason for Drew's truthfulness to be in question. Also, if the test is inconclusive, then the results are just as useless for arguing that that he's lying as they are for arguing that he's telling the truth. This sort of thing is the reason polygraph results aren't admissible in court: Too much hinges on the interpretation of the tester.
What happened to Agent Lewis's character?
In all her past appearances she had been level headed, a little controlling, but overall good. Come Secrets Exhumed she's a control freak who's poorly hiding the fact that she killed someone -by the way, she probably has the best psych defense possible what with being tricked into having an abortion and all- and it's just weird! Did they give the episode to a new writer, was Leight tired of everyone clamp ring for her return, or something else?!?
Why in the episode Intoxicated did the show go out of its way to try and make the viewer feel sympathy for Carrie when she murdered her mother in cold-blood?
Just to set up the episode: Carrie is fifteen years old and is in a relationship with a twenty-one-year-old man named Justin. Carrie's mom Denise, who happens to be an alcoholic, wants to file statutory rape charges against Justin. Here's the problem: Olivia identifies with Carrie. Even though Justin is committing a crime despite the fact that Carrie and him do love each other, Olivia sides with Carries and undermines Denise's every efforts to get criminal charges against Justin. She even got Carrie her own defense attorney to act pro bono so Carrie could be emancipated from Denise! This goes above any beyond what a police detective should do, especially when Denise hadn't broken any laws and was just trying to file statutory rape charges!
Then the show goes on to contradict itself. Carrie later murders Denise, and Justin helps her cover up for the crime. He even tries to take the blame for it. The thing is, we don't know what actually happened leading up to Denise's murder. Denise's autopsy showed she was sober when she was murdered, but when Carrie confesses she claims Denise attacked her in a drunken rage and she killed Denise as a combination of self-defense and frustration. Later on Carrie's story is backed up when Olivia finds numerous bottles of alcohol stashed throughout the house. So we're expected to believe that Carrie killed Denise to defend herself from her mother's drunken rage when Denise's autopsy showed she was sober?
One thing that was also troublesome was Carrie's behavior after her confession. Granted she only confessed because Olivia lied to her and told her Justin had already confessed and said Carrie killed Denise. But when Carrie saw Justin still waiting for her after the confession, and realized Olivia lied, she flies into a profane-laced rage against Olivia and physically attacks her. You would think with this sudden burst of anger that this would signify with her murder of Denise that maybe Carrie had flown into a rage and murdered her mother in her own rage and not self-defense, but this assault isn't brought up again.
Then of course...the ending. Casey is fully prepared to proceed with her case against Carrie, but decides to go through with a plea agreement to keep Carrie out of prison because Olivia guilt-tripped her. So Carrie got probation for involuntary manslaughter instead of going to prison for murder just because of the fact that Denise had been an alcoholic. More shocking is the reveal that a poll of the jury showed that they had wanted to convict Carrie.
So despite the hints that showed that Carrie had quite a violent personality, and the fact that Justin had been committing statutory rape, both Carrie and Justin each get a Karma Houdini because Olivia felt they deserved it because of Denise's alcoholism.
Does this seem crazy to be angry about this episode? Because I felt Carrie deserved to go to prison for Denise's murder and I didn't like the victim-blaming that went on.
A drunk who is that far down into alcoholism is just as much of a raging asshole when they haven't been drinking, because of the beginnings of withdrawal (one of the first symptoms is irritability). Denise was probably sober, but that doesn't mean her irrational, abusive behavior was very different from how she acted while drunk, and it's unlikely Carrie would have known the difference. It's very likely that Denise, after going without alcohol in an effort to look good for the cops so she'd look more credible than Justin, blamed Carrie for her predicament and lashed out.
Don't bother with backup
In the episode "Folly," the unit convinces a male escort to wear a wire while speaking to a woman who has been sending other escorts out to die. Okay, reasonable enough. However, the unit is simply waiting in the car, listening when she finds the wire. They hesitate, then eventually mobilize and then... wait outside her door until they hear the escort screaming. My description doesn't do it justice, but the length of time between them ascertaining that their plant was in trouble and actually doing anything is astonishing. Not to beat a dead horse here, but if it were a female victim they would have barged in the second their informant was even slightly in trouble.
The fact that she found the wire on him is another Headscratcher. They knew that the two were in a sexual relationship and that she's a very high-powered woman... given the inevitability of her feeling him, they should have hidden the wire better.
Prosecution can't bring new evidence to court?
I don't know much about American or New York state law, so here's a law question: I just watched an episode about a mother shaking her baby, leading to brain damage. In that episode, new evidence comes up during trial, which the prosecution isn't allowed to bring up in court. Is the law really like that? I'm not saying that the defense shouldn't be allowed to consider the new evidence - they should - but things can change outside of investigation or prosecution control.