troperville

tools

toys


main index

Narrative

Genre

Media

Topical Tropes

Other Categories

TV Tropes Org
random
Headscratchers: Law & Order: Special Victims Unit

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 

    The negative attitude towards this show and its characters, particularly Benson and Stabler. 
After reading through this wiki, it seems, overall, that the contributors to SVU's pages have a less than positive opinion about the show. Sure it doesn't make sense at times, but it's a primetime police drama, and how many of those types of shows haven't been melodramatic? Also the rampant hatred of Olivia and Elliot, particularly Elliot. This wiki makes Elliot to be a borderline psychopath who abuses his family. While Elliot does have anger issues, can be overprotective, and is rough with suspects, he is a good guy overall who truly cares about his family and wants to lock up pedophiles so that they can't hurt others. Can you blame him for hating and wanting to beat up suspected child molesters? Yes, it's unprofessional, a flaw which he and Olivia get a lot of flack about, but again, it's a primetime tv cop drama. When have the cops on tv ever followed the rules and laws to a T? The contributors to these pages make it look like they have absolutely no control over themselves and that everything they do is a mistake. Does everyone on this wiki hate them or is it just a loud minority that continually contributes?
  • I understand dislike of Elliot. He certainly has problems and I've found myself wanting to call him out during several episodes, however I don't think his character warrants the amount of hatred he gets. It's implied his tendency towards violence is partly a result of the amount of time he's been in the SVU (I think it was specified as six times that of a normal officer). He's viewed some of the worst acts a human can commit for many years now, and given that many of them were performed on children and he's a father, it's not surprising that he's come a bit unglued. As for Olivia, she's hard on men because her mother was raped and most of the violent people she comes in contact with on a daily basis are male. She spends a ton of time with women and child victims, so she's naturally biased, and having almost been raped certainly didn't help that bias go away. "Bitch" is a very strong word that I personally think is greatly misused. Olivia has shown so much kindness, care and compassion that I would hardly consider her a bitch. She makes mistakes and she can be very hard on people, but she means well and her heart is in the right place. Olivia and Elliot have issues, but they try hard to do what's right while dealing with them. They've saved countless lives and exposed themselves to hell for others sake. They're human and they make mistakes and bad judgement calls, but that doesn't make them terrible people.
    • Since when is "theyre human" an excuse for constantly getting away with the crap they pull, and never changing at all? Just because you have some good sides, doesnt mean it excuses your bad ones. Hell, how many people have had their lives ruined because of Olivias or Elliots overzealous bullshit?
      • I'll just say that changing isn't always as easy as some might think, especially when you're in certain circumstances. You and I clearly have a different way of seeing people, and nothing I say is going to change your point of view. My experiences in life have influenced the way I look at things and the way I react to them. I look for positives in life rather than negatives, and I try to focus on them. I do the same thing when I examine people. That's not to say that I excuse mistakes, but rather I accept that they were made and then move on because they happen to everyone. Mistakes are a part of life and so is emotion. I don't expect Elliot and Olivia to react rationally or make the best decisions on every case. The nature of SVU and the nature of people in general just doesn't allow that in my opinion.
      • That isnt the point, they can be as fucked up as they want to be, but they are in a position of authority that they constantly abuse, they are NEVER punished for it, theyve destroyed several lives already, something they refuse to own up to, and they are NEVER called out on any of it. Its bad writing, and they are horrible people.
      • "I have a positive attitude, so I don't mind that Elliot and Olivia ruin innocent lives, rarely suffer any lasting consequences and refuse to learn their lessons when they do. Everybody makes mistakes!" seems like exactly the kind of problem people are talking about.
      • "Never punished for it" is a bit of an overstatement. They've been punished numerous times throughout the series. And whether or not they own up to their mistakes tends to depend on the situation they're in as well as the overall tone of the episode. This is a police drama and the characters react very emotionally and sometimes irrationally. Another poster actually said it best further down the page. Quote  Whether or not you consider this bad writing is up to you, but many people find the show and its characters to be very enjoyably.
      • And yet, they are still on the force ,they have never been substantially punished, the writers STILL expect all the viewers to sympathize with them, even though they at this point are almost as bad as the people they bring in, and you STILL havent acknowledged the fact that they have ruined the lives of innocent people, who's only crime was having these assholes attention. Being a police drama doesnt excuse poor writing, inconsistent characters or Aesop Amnesia. They CONTINUE to do the exact same damn things that have caused serious damage before, without even hinting at hesitating. Is some sort of realism so much to ask? Some punishment perhaps? Jailtime even? Just because you have badge doesnt mean you get to endlessly abuse your position.
    • There was an episode where he was in a position to do what he wanted to to a suspect without repercussion (he was in Europe at the time). He beat the crap out of him. It kind of lends credence to the idea that he is only kept in check by fear of reprisal on himself, and if that's the case, he should have been cycled out of SVU a looong time ago.
      • The guy wasn't a suspect, he was a perp. There's a difference. While I understand the desire to see officers of the law behave in a professional manner, the point of that scene was to give viewers the catharsis of witnessing a confirmed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, child rapist and pornographer get the living hell beaten out of him. If scenes like this didn't happen people on this wiki would be posting entries with lines like "it's a wonder they haven't unloaded a No-Holds-Barred Beatdown on one of these creeps yet". Not to say that Elliot is always justified- he's certainly crossed the line, but his behavior is understandable.
    • Even if you can understand Stabler's behavior, the problem for many people is that the show goes out of its way to condone it. Many viewers, myself included, see Stabler as a bullying, brutish corrupt policeman who disregards the laws he's meant to uphold whenever they inconvenience him. And as was brought up before- he never does get punished. His wife leaves him because of his growing instability, but she comes back a season later. He gets suspended for beating up a pedophile, but it turns out the pedophile later murdered someone so he's back to work the next day. He and Fin bully someone into committing suicide, but nobody mentions it again. Even when he does suffer, he seems to use the experiences to justify his behavior, martyr-complex-style. The guy needed to be fired. That's just my opinion on it (and that of many other people, apparently). You asked why folks hate Elliot and many other people on the show (The Martyr-complex thing could pretty easily be applied to all of them, except maybe Munch), and there's your explanation.

     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.
    • This is not necessarily a bad thing considering the more we learn about someone on the show, the crappier thier lives were such as a fellow Child Of Rape that was doing fine until Olivia exposed her to her past and suffered a mother of a breakdown and lampshades this. Same case as Warner having a dog, daughter and military past and that's it and that's just fine. Huang isn't a Child Of Rape, wasn't abused as a child and nobody he loved was stuffed in a fridge so as far as the show goes Details = Crapsack World
      • 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.

    When will there ever be a good Male Military person? 
Lets look back, There is an hero astronaut who killed his crew mate so he could go up in space, there is the doctors drugging war vets into suicide, and it makes the Military Sexual Harassment policy look like it was designed to get female service members raped. The writers obviously do not know how much sexual harassment is pounded into new recruits heads while they're at boot camp, and in job training, and every time they change locations AND every few months. I am tired of being labeled a drug peddling rapist just for having to salute the flag.
  • Sadly, sexual assault is still depressingly common in the military (it's believed that 1 in 5 women has been a victim), and SVU is likely trying to highlight that problem in their usual heavy-handed, unsubtle way.
  • Well there was the one episode where the Female solider went AWOL after being raped. and One of her Squad mates Not only tracked her down to try to bring her back for help. and tracked her attacker Down to bring about justice and Risked his Career even to the point of almost being court martialed. He went a little over-board with guilt he couldn't help her. I think that counts even a little.
    • Presumably the war vets and the killed crew mate were decent people. Really, most of the people who appear on such shows are killers or victims.
  • There was a good male military person. His name was Elliot.
    • Not buying it. Any other options?
  • Fin served in the Army.
  • The Shell-Shocked Veteran in "Traumatic Wound" was heroic, highly sympathetic, and led the detectives to putting away several gang rapists.

     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.
  • Benson showing bias against males? What else is new? Seriously, the more I watch, the more I'm find myself liking her less and less due to her borderline Misandry. (The earliest of this, as far as I can remember, is in "Pique" note ) Makes you wonder if her Near-Rape Experience may have something to do with her behavior as of late.
    • 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.

    Did anyone else get really really pissed when Oliva was almost raped? 
Maybe I've been jaded by comic books, but it felt like a half-assed attempt to make her DEEEEEEEEEEEEP. It just rang with some unfortunate implications with me. "Is your female lead running out of plot-steam? HAVE HER RAPED/ALMOST RAPED!"
  • To be fair, she works in the Special Victims Unit, which means she deals with sexual predators on an almost daily basis, putting herself out in the field against sexually violent and aggressive individuals — this is one of the few cases where it would be surprising if she never had a Near-Rape Experience.
  • Honestly, the episode kinda reads like torture porn. I can't watch it more than once. It just comes off as overdrawn or something to me.

  • I honestly feel like it was supposed to show a turning point in Olivia's life as well as her career; make her question her ability to effectively do her job as well as maintain her cool in general. "What if things had gone differently, where would I be now?" "How can I be a cop if I let something like that happen?" "Should I quit my job or continue to do my duty to protect and serve?"

    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.

    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.

    Why did no one notice that Rebecca Hendrix is the World's Most Incompetent Shrink? 
  • In "Contagious", an innocent man's life is ruined, and it never seems to occur to anyone that IT IS HENDRIX'S FAULT. She's the one who browbeat a terrified nine-year-old child into making a false accusation. Into naming someone, anyone, JUST TO SHUT HENDRIX UP. And later she seems genuinely surprised to learn that a molestation victim might actually give a false answer just to put an end to the constant, endless, intolerable verbal pounding of "Who did this to you? You have to tell us! Say who did it!"
    • Truth in Television. Raymond Buckey's life was ruined after he spent five years in prison just awaiting trial because a therapist named Kee Mac Farlane, who wasn't even a psychiatrist or a psychology Ph.D., browbeat a group of children into claiming he had molested them, and the kicker was that these children had not even been molested by anyone. Mac Farlane just decided they had been, because a few of them fit her definition of children with post-molestation trauma, something she made up after no research, and the rest of the children happened to go to school with the first few children. It was the school where Buckey worked, but many of the children who claimed he molested them (and forced them to drink blood in satanic rituals, eat excrement, killed animals in front of them, and fed them to lions that lived under the preschool, the list goes on) went to the school before Buckey worked there. Basically, Mac Farlane refused to stop questioning the children until they told her what she wanted to hear.
      • Itís not though as you said Kee Mac Farlane wasnít a psychiatrist she just made up a bunch of stuff Rebecca is trained and certified yet not once did she realize that this wasnít a good idea. Of course given the level of incompetence of everyone else on this show itís not hard to imagine why they would hire her and not someone qualified.
    • Then, there's the story of the teenagers who confessed to raping and beating almost to death a woman in Central Park ("The Central Park Jogger"), after hours and hours of questioning, because they just wanted to go home, and didn't really understand the finality of their confession, since it wasn't actually true.
      • That was actually shown on Criminal intent
    • And Another Thing... Why was Hendrix interviewing Elliot and Olivia to see if they should continue working together? Surely, Cragen would have plumped for someone more impartial and more competent.
  • Not to mention in the episode with the twins, where she immediately diagnoses one of them as paranoid and emotionally disturbed after less than five minutes into his interrogation, because he was being accused of something he really didn't do and got upset over it. The whole blurting out that they're both boys thing is just the icing on the cake. And on top of that, how did she not know that identical twins are always the same sex to begin with?
    • No one ever mentions that the twins are identical until its revealed that both of them are boys. The boy keeps saying that he didn't do it, yet his DNA was supposedly found. Then the girl says that she did it, but the DNA is male. The parents' having had their son get a sex change was actually the big surprise of the episode.
      • She still should have known based on the fact that they looked like, talked to, and reacted to each other like identical twins. Fraternal twins aren't any more alike than ordinary siblings; someone who's been trained to know the difference (like Hendrix is supposed to have been) ought to have picked up on it immediately. (This troper did, at least.)
      • Fraternal twins can look a lot alike, however, just as non-twin siblings sometimes do.

    When did the show become "Stabler and Benson and Sometimes Fin" 
  • Seriously, what happened to Munch? The most I see of him nowadays is the odd line every few episodes. He's a cross between a ninja and a sarcastic old man, yet Unstabler and Benson feature in most of the episodes, with Fin popping up for an episode once in a while.
  • Since they chucked Hero For A Day episodes altogether. My best guess is that "Uncle" was Munch's last one.
  • The character of Munch was originally from Homicide: Life on the Street and they still have to pay royalties to the owners for every episode he's in. It's only a pittance, because the people who own him are fans of Law and Order, but it's still extra paperwork. So they keep his appearances to a minimum when no one feels like dealing with that.

    Where did Casey get that t-shirt? 
  • The "Sex Crimes" one in "Night".
  • NYPD Softball league.
  • Zazzle.com

    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?
     In "Sugar," the second episode of the eleventh season, ADA Sonya Paxton threatens a witness with rape to make her testify. The cops watching say nothing. What the hell. 
  • This is one of the cops' favorite threats with the regular perps. Paxton was a Froot Loop, but threatening the innocent with rape is not new. Still very painful to watch, though.
  • This particular practice actually comes back in one episode to bite one of the team members in the ass. In "Perverted", a man Olivia had threatened would be raped in Rikers was raped in Rikers, very severely and constantly, and so he frames her in a murder. Don't think they stopped using the tactic after that incident, though.

    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.
  • Yeah, I think this question may be Completely Missing the Point. 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.

    Is anyone else really annoyed by that episode were Stabler beat up that pedophile website owner? 
Seriously. The man did nothing wrong and Elliot barged into his house and beat him senseless. I get that he was sexually attracted to children, but he didn't molest any or even have anything that could be considered pornographic. The pictures he had were of children completely clothed and in no sexual situations and he was careful to stay well within the law. I know that was Elliot's kid, but damn. What's more, even though he was suspended, Stabler's attack on him seemed to be viewed as "He deserved it, but you shouldn't've done it anyway." Then the Captain mentions they'll delay the assault charge filed against Elliot until the guy he beat up heals and he has no case. Oh, but then the pedophile kills someone so everything Elliot did was a-okay. Seriously, putting an unarmed man in the hospital when he didn't technically do anything wrong should've gotten Elliot fired.
  • Probably because pedophiles, even ones who do not act on their impulses, are Acceptable Targets from the point of view of the show's creator, writers, and target demographic.
  • He put a photo of Stabler's daughter on a pedophile website for pedophiles to enjoy and masturbate over. If someone did that with a photo of my little sister, I'd kill him!
  • To quote Fin;
    "If it had been my kid, I'd have done it."
    • It wasn't treated as the right thing to do, but it certainly wasn't treated as an unrealistic reaction, because quite frankly it wasn't. I know if pictures of my young cousins showed up on a website like that, there would be at least seven grown men competing to do even worse to the person responsible.
  • Personally, my problem wasn't so much with Stabler doing it (it was well within his character, at least) as it was his coworkers backing him up on it and flat out making the man delete the pictures. The whole damn department should've potentially gone down for that one.
    • It's not that hard to understand why he did what he did. That alone is enough of a reason none of them would hold what he did against him. I can imagine any of the higher ups would have had a hard time blaming him either if the issue had been brought to him. It's not professional, no, but when have any of them been known to be 100% professional for more than a few episodes at a time?
    • It was wrong of Stabler to do, but it wasn't just coincidence that his daughter appeared on the website. The site owner got the picture after his first run-in with Stabler, and posted the photo to bait him. I'm not really sure what the site owner thought would happen— that he'd get beat up, and then he'd get Stabler fired, or Stabler would sue him, and he'd get his day in court, vindicating the legality of what he was doing, but he did try to provoke Stabler.
  • He's a cop. He's supposed to have more self-control than that. Yet he never gets more than a slap on the wrist. He should've been fired years ago.
    • Or at least get some anger management...
    • While I agree on the anger management. Seeing the photo of your daughter on a website can easily send even the calmest man into a blind rage. I know if it my daughter, I'd have wanted to kill the guy.
  • What bothered me most about that episode was how nearly every single bad thing that happened was either directly or indirectly the team's fault. That kid came to them crying and begging for help, horrified by his urges and not wanting to hurt anyone. Their inability to see him as anything more or less than an unrepentant child rapist led to every single tragedy in the episode, and they are NEVER called on this or realize their screw up.
    • That was the point. SVU is about sex crimes. It isn't designed to help people who are potential criminals, but don't want to be. Someone who can't afford food doesn't go to the robbery unit and say they feel they might commit robbery to get food, but they haven't yet. But there are places for people without enough to eat, to go (maybe inadequate, but they exist). There's really nothing out there to help someone who feels pedophilic urges, but doesn't want to act on them. This was one episode that wasn't as anvilicious as is typical for the show, and maybe should have been.
      • I'm pretty sure if you walk into any police department and say, "I can't afford food", they'll give you a list of places that you can go to get it. Did that happen with this kid?
      • Of course not. That resource doesn't exist in any form that the SVU has access to. There are counseling groups for sex offenders, such as the one Elliot attended undercover, but the police can't legally send someone there except by court order. There are therapists and counselors, but the kid was still a minor and couldn't be given health care of any kind without his parents' consent. The biggest problem is that the kid had not done anything yet, so the police couldn't interfere.

    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.

    Who the hell would let a proven child murderer go free based on brainwashing? 
In "Anchor" a murderer has been killing "anchor" children. They go to his house and find pictures of the three dead children marked off, and pictures of three more children to be targeted. They arrest him AT THE HOUSE of one of the children, having knocked out the father and tying up the mother. How the hell does any jury let him go free on three counts of child killing. On a claim that a Right Wing Radical brainwashed him (through a t.v. show no less) made him do it.

Not only that but it also bugged me that of the show's two strawman politicians, the liberal one (who goes way over the top for media coverage and defending immigrant rights) actually DEFENDS the murderer at his trial. All in order to make the other strawman look bad.

He does kind of redeem himself at the end of the episode, when his client says "thanks, now I can kill more kids" he has a What Have I Done moment. Straw Liberal kills the man himself.
  • There was a meme around that time about right-wing commentators creating domestic terrorism by creating a "climate of hate". Sometimes even to the point of claiming said commentators were committing terrorism with their commentary. Therefore, silencing Not Bill O'Reilly was more important than catching some murderer who was only Not Bill O'Reilley's catspaw. Or so the writers seemed to think. (Why, yes, that *is* an anti-free speech argument.)

    Am I the only one annoyed that they didn't go with the idea of Olivia's mother lying about being raped? 
  • It would of totally destroy her mother's character if they went with that. She at least had a excuse for being a pathetic drunk and an abusive mother. She would of have to of been some sort of super monster to falsely accuse n innocent man and make Olivia believe that she's a rape baby.
    • It also would have had some very unfortunate implications in regards to rape victims that would have pissed off a large chunk of the viewers.
    • The fact that some people lie about being raped is just an unfortunate truth. Pretending it doesn't happen hurts real rape victims as much as the falsely accused.
      • Right. 54% of all sexual assaults being unreported and 97% of all rapists never spending a day in jail couldn't possibly be hurt by people believing all rape victims lie. Now what are the statistics on false rape reports?
      • The statistic isn't "97% of rapists never spend a day in jail". The statistic is "Assuming over 50% of rapes aren't reported, only 3% lead to felony convictions greater than time served"- a huge leap to only 3% of rapists never spending a day in jail. Most rapes result in misdemeanor convictions (whether this is right or wrong morally is a whole 'nother can of worms), plea bargains, or sentences of time served- meaning that the perpetrator already would have spent their time in jail before being sentenced. The actual conviction rate for rapes is about 56% percent. False statistics hurt everyone, including victims, so check your facts before taking them as gospel.
The reality is that false rape reports happen. Admitting this doesn't hurt anyone. It's not believing all rape victims lie- anyone who has seen more than two episodes of this show would know that's far from the case. But false rape reports also put men at risk (if they are jailed, they can be raped themselves, or killed) so by denying that false rape reports happen, you're effectively helping to place more people at risk of being raped. Not every rape victims lies, but not every one tells the truth, and there's nothing wrong with admitting that. Getting rid of false reports would help everyone. Back on topic: I agree with the poster who said it was due to time constraints. Benson's character arks are annoying enough as it is. If she had found out that everything she knew was a lie, it would have required a lengthy storyline to show her coming to terms with it, which wouldn't have worked for a Law and Order show.
  • Can you imagine how much it would emotionally destroy Benson if she found out her mother lied? This show just couldn't handle something like that. I know that seems weird, considering the horrific crap they usually write about, but they almost always drop the ball when they have their regular cast going through a traumatic event — e.g., Benson's magically disappearing PTSD, people going way out of character, etc. Doing their standard "one episode and then I'm over it" thing just wouldn't cut it, and the writers couldn't pull off an ongoing plot arc for something like that. It would make for a good episode (if written by someone competent) to have a guest star whose mother abuses her by telling her she's a rape baby when she isn't, though, so they wouldn't have to deal with all the leftover baggage in the next episode.

    The amoral attorney trope in full swing makes it hard to take the show seriously on an entertainment level. 
Knowing this being Law & Order, a show where the main characters are the NYPD and the Attorney's at Law, they couldn't possibly avoid showing the Defense as monsters with an agenda while the Prosecution is exercising their Major in Great Heroism which lets them be outright rude to the Defense while making themselves look more righteous. Meh, it's probably just me thinking in absolutes again.
  • No, I wouldn't quite say that. When Elliot and Benson (and often the ADA) are having episodes where they're really on the rampage for breaking rules and ignoring human rights, the defense attorney, if shown, is usually even smarmier and sleazier than usual (which says a lot). When they're more conflicted, the attorney typically seems more professional, or even outright sympathetic. When needed, the defense can be outright bastards to make the SVU look better by comparison.
  • Barry Moredock (the civil rights attorney from various episodes, including the one with the teenager whose medication sent him into a manic episode) is one of the few to have been portrayed in a positive light, often taking on cases for free and actually giving a damn about his client's well-being, rather than their money. Even Alex, who practically eats defence attorneys for breakfast, showed genuine affection for him, despite going up against him in court several times. Most of the other regulars have had an occasional Pet the Dog moment, with Oliver Gates being the possible exception.

    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.)

    Suggesting that they show a woman in the midst of a psychotic break the body of her dead son? Is Huang just trying to give them bad advice now? 
Sure, it might have made it 'real' for her, but there is no way that it was going to end well for anyone. Not that that was the only problem with the episode, of course.
  • Don't feel bad. The whole episode was terrible.
  • In his defense, it wasn't seeing her child that threw her over the edge. Had the father not barged in, knowing full well everything was his fault, she might not have caught the rookie cop off guard and threaten to shoot people.

    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).

    Does anyone else find Alex's non-answer about why she didn't contact Elliot and Liv between getting out of Wit Sec and coming back to SVU really, really frustrating? 
  • Yes, but the dumbest part was her explanation for why she was able to leave witness protection. Even worse was the way they shoehorned her into Ghost, which STILL makes zero sense.

    Has this show ever had a non-sympathetic female go to jail for raping or sexually assaulting a male 
  • I can think of 2 non-sympathetic women that raped men and one was acquitted and the other not charged. I can also think of a few sympathetic women that went to jail after statutory raping boys one was sympathetic because she had a brain tumor which made it hard for her to repress the urges, others were shown to actually love the much younger boys they were sleeping with. Have there ever been any examples that I cannot remember.
    • Sharon Lawrence's character in "Chameleon" was vaguely based on Aileen Wuornos. she solicits men as a prostitute, then kills and robs them, and claims they tried to rape her, so it was self-defense. When she finally gets caught, she has a sob story about having been abused as a child. She is quite evil, although I suppose what she does is not technically rape, but you can still call it a sex crime. And she turns out to be even more evil than that. She commits suicide in jail, but the detectives and lawyers are perfectly prepared to try her to the full extent of the law, and have no sympathy for her. She has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
      • Except they did not charge her with any sex crime she went to jail for killing about a dozen people while she was horrible she did not go to jail because of anything sexual
      • She didn't commit a sex crime. She used sex to lure men to their deaths, but the sex itself was consensual all around. The killing, not so much, but the sex itself was pretty straightforward.
  • I recall one episode with a non-sympathetic woman who would drug men, get pregnant, try to "sell" the unborn baby to various different adoptive couples simultaneously, and eventually accused the person she had nonconsenting sex with a raping her so she could take his money. Was an outright con-artist and the show didn't sugar-coat it..... Except for the fact that she was having non-consenting sex with various partners and the word "rape" was never even uttered in relation to it, and she wound up getting off scot-free by making a deal.
    • They got her in the original Law and Order, thankfully.
    • However they said that the only thing they could charge her with was theft because there were no rules how to retrieve a manís sperm when he is unconscious. They did not like her and said that There Should Be a Law but they never even considered charging her with sexual assault.
  • I recall an episode where a psychiatrist falsely diagnosed a male teenage patient she fell in love with, ruined his relationship with his girlfriend by telling her parents he raped her, drugging him to make her false diagnoses seem true so she could have him stay at her house, just so she could drug and have sex with him, and GOT PREGNANT AND DELIVERED THE PRODUCT OF THE RAPE AND RAISED HIM AS HER OWN BABY. When they arrested her, her only (stupid)excuse was that she had a few boyfriends who hit her and she wanted one who wouldn't. When she was found guilty and sentenced to prison(I forget how long, but it wasn't short, and she lost her license), she said she wasn't sorry for what she did and she was still in love with the teenage boy.
    • They still gave her a Freudian Excuse that was supposed to generate some sympathy for her
      • Except she only mentioned it once, and it was never brought up after that. If they were gonna go that route, they would have had her lawyer exploit that, but it's never referenced again and she gives a creepy speech about how she didn't believe what she did was wrong in any way and she's still in love with the boy.
  • There was one on regular L&O, as well, very early on, before there was SVU to handle the sex crimes.
    • On what episode of the mother ship did this happen, if you do not know the title could you describe it
  • Then, there's the episode "Ridicule," where Diane Neal and some friends rape a male stripper at a bachelorette party, when she played another character, before she came on to play Casey Novak.
    • And she was acquitted of that crime at the end, they might have tried to get her but she did not go to jail for it

    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.
    • Episode was a terrible (or stupidly funny). I especially hate how they tried to work in so many subjects at once (Schizophrenics don't get the right treatment, how bad it is that bums get beaten up, how bad it is that the homeless attack people, why abstinence is bad in the long term, etc.) But I guess it you want a semi-justification for everything, For one, the guy wasn't thinking clearly and was in a fit of rage. And for the third part, how many cases in this show should be thrown out due to the police or DA getting evidence with ignoring basic ethics ("As you can see from the interrogation room camera, Your Honor, my client made his confession without a lawyer present and whilst having Detective Stabler crushing his scrotum in his fist.")? I think we're supposed to ignore that and just assume it went through anyway before she deserves it according to the show. No idea about the second one, though.
    • 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.
  • The thing that made this episode even more terrible was the way it combined three real-life news stories (and their subsequent moral panics) into the single more blatantly Ripped From The Head Lines episode in the history of the universe. The news stories in question:
    • People beating up the homeless and posting it online: Based on the Bum Fights website, as well as a number of other videos that have been posted online.
    • Pregnancy pact: A bunch of idiots in a Catholic school made a pact to get pregnant, supposedly getting the idea from the movie Juno. Thankfully, the episode did this one justice by focusing on the Sex ed. issue instead of finding an easy scapegoat.
    • Suicide after internet harassment: Based on the very tragic case of Megan Meier, a 14-year-old who killed herself after the mother of a so-called "friend" created a MySpace account to harass her. The mother in question, Lori Drew, has had her information posted all over the internet, and received endless harassment. This was the case that started the recent resurgence of the internet bullying panic (later becoming a bullying-in-general panic due to other high-profile cases, such as the Phoebe Prince and Tyler Clementi incidents).

    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 
. Truth in Television. A lot of women do the same thing in Real Life. It happens for one or more of the following reasons:
  • 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.

    Am I the only one who thinks that Olivia came off as a Karma Houdini in "Blinded?" 
She deliberately informed the feds of the perp-of-the-week's location knowingly that he would be shipped off to Louisiana where he would be executed for his crimes. And when Casey, after finding out that he was suffering from mental illness that made him (unknowingly) perform those heinous actions on those girls, threw the case so he would get mental help instead of being sent for execution, she told Jack McCoy about it. The reason she did all of this? Because the perp slammed Elliot's head into a car window which temporary blinded him (Her saying along the lines of "He's my partner, I'm supposed to look out for him" to justify her actions doesn't help). While they both called each other out on their actions, at least Casey got an earful from McCoy.
  • That wasn't the only problem with the episode. In every other episode where it was revealed that someone had a mental illness, Novak was always a total hardass about it... and then this case comes along, and suddenly she's sensitive about mental illness because her ex-fiancť was schizophrenic? Riiiight. Of course, she went back into hardass mode in all subsequent episodes. Was Blind set in opposite-land or something?
  • Not exactly. Liv was mad because Casey got Eliot to testify despite the fact that he was still recuperating (which was Eliot's choice, fair enough) and then used Eliot to throw the case and get the perp who had blinded Eliot off. Whether that changes your reaction or not is up to you, but she didn't rat out Casey just because she threw the case.
  • I agree that Olivia was angry because Casey had got Elliot to testify, but I still think ratting her out showed a vindictive streak (that we hadn't seen before from what I remember). Although I don't see how Olivia could have been punished, I understand where the OP is coming from. At least, Casey was mishandling her own case from motives of compassion. Olivia was interfering in someone else's case from motives of revenge. About the mental illness thing, perhaps it was because the man was schizophrenic in particular (as opposed to having another mental illness in general).

    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 how come nobody seemed all that concerned that Elliot and Fin tortured, denied constitutional rights to, and caused the death of an innocent man at the police station who was a suspect on a case they were not working on? 

In that episode they arrested a petty thief named Stefan who was being attacked by an angry mob on suspicion that he was a serial rapist that major case was trying to catch. After their typical Perp Sweating tactics which included Lying to the Perp claiming they had his DNA was found at the crime sceen, the man requested a Lawyer. The two detectives (who knew that the suspect Hates Being Touched) responded to that request by holding him down and threatening him with rape until he wet his pants. They then leave and the suspect kills himself with a small knife that they had somehow had forgotten to take away from him.

After the interrogation but before the suicide Craigen did point out that they had just assaulted him and Fin just brushed it off saying that he would like to see an attorney make that stick. When it was pointed out he requested one they justified not giving him legal counsel by saying that he said he needed one not that he wanted one. Cabot did also show some doubts about his guilt and said that she could not charge him on what they had but defended them not giving the suspect an attorney. To make matters worse the Chief of Detectives was also in the building and complaining about how badly SVU was handling the case which they were taken off of.

After the innocent suspect committed suicide Fin claimed that he had confessed to the rape and murders despite the fact that he didnít and he had told the Chief of Dís that a few moments earlier. At the hospital they meet up with the detective who had been working on the case and learn that his daughter was now comatose after a car accident. They then learn that the man who they assaulted and drove to suicide was completely innocent and the real culprit had struck again. The Chief of Dís dose mention that they screwed up and threaten them, but when the other detective request to work SVU everybody seems to forget about all the laws they broke and the man they killed.
  • ..... Wow. I'm more curious why this isn't on Moral Event Horizon.
    • The reason it is not on Moral Event Horizon is because they just glossed over it and hoped people would forget about it, the scenes with Stefan lasted only about 5 minutes in the middle of the episode, and what they did to him was dismissed by the detective that had been investigating it as what he would have done in that situation. Also their arrest of him was ridiculous because a witness had identified the perp as a black man and both the suspect and the eventual killer were Hispanic. Really they break several laws and abused there power in that episode like using a non-criminal database to find the DNA of the killers family members (which Munch, who was absent from the above interrogation, was opposed to because it violated peoples rights), and threatening to arrest one of them because she did not want to tell them about her family. Craigen did say right before the suicide that all one pp cared about were results and it did not matter how they got them, but really the SVU should have been at the very least suspended no matter how bad the killer was.
  • In real life, Fin and Stabler would be lucky if they didn't end up in prison for the crap they pull, let alone still working in the NYPD.

    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.

    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.

    Shattered. Would it have been better if the Mom was the one responsible for everything, instead of the Dad? 
When I was watching this episode, I had thought it was the mom who was responsible for kidnapping her son, which led to his death. Then, she snaps and after some horrible Sharon Stone acting, we find out that, OMG it was the DAD! I called bullshit on that. EVERYTHING in the damn episode suggested that the mom was behind everything. She had even tried to hire someone else to kidnap the kid. But all of a sudden, the Shocking Swerve shows up and the one reasonable character in the episode was the bad guy. Does anyone else feel this way?
  • They only believed the mom was behind everything because the dad got to them first and poisoned the group into thinking the mom is the only one with a motive to do this.
    • But literally, the dad had NO reason to do so. He had already won custody of the son, the wife was not allowed to see him. FFS, the mom tried to hire a mercenary to abduct the kid... kinda like what later happened! Sorry, but even though the dad was responsible for everything it would have made much more logical sense for it to have been the damn mom, who wanted to kidnap her son and take him with her to work in foreign countries.
      • You just explained why he did have reason to do so. If mom goes to jail, dad has their son all to himself.
      • Except no. If the dad wanted his son all to himself, all he had to do was pick up the phone, call the police, and say the mom is breaking the court order. Like she did giving the kid that necklace.

    Behave. 
  • They have the suspect's stalker shrine of the victim, complete with video footage of her through the years, her underwear, and a freaking photo album with the dates of the first four times he raped her. They also have proof that he checked into a hotel the night of her fifth rape and drove the exact distance of a round trip from said hotel to the crime scene, climbing through his window so the hotel staff wouldn't realize he'd been gone. But because there isn't conclusive DNA evidence linking him to the fifth rape, they can't even go to trial?! And all for the sake of a Writer on Board about better staffing for crime labs? WTF?
    • Also, now that I think of it, after Benson's trip out west, what did they even need that old DNA evidence for? To prove that he committed the earlier rapes? Because that really wasn't in any kind of doubt after the shrine showed up. If they needed something to match against a sample from the most recent rape, why not just take a blood/skin/urine sample from him after his arrest? What would the old sample prove that they didn't have other evidence to show?
    • The disregard of the evidence isn't the only problem with that episode:
      • Benson's stalking of the rape victim was utterly ridiculous, particularly since the poor girl's rapist was a stalker. Way to further traumatize her, Liv. Not only that, but asking the victim to trust you isn't exactly brilliant when you've got a god damn gun pointed at her.
      • And then we have them stalking the perp., handing out fliers that call him a rapist, crashing private parties, and practically going around with a bull horn, screaming it to the world. When he got into his car, I half expected the driver to turn around, revealing that it's Munch. The guy could have easily sued the department for multiple counts of harassment, slander, libel, and so on. All of the detectives would have been in huge legal trouble, possibly costing them their careers. And not only that, but the case probably would have been thrown out because the cops were harassing a man who was innocent (because of his alibi) in the eyes of the law — any evidence they collected would be considered highly suspect.
      • While they were wasting time stalking the victim and then stalking the stalker, how many open rape cases went uninvestigated? How many of those had victims who actually wanted to file charges? The one-case-per-episode format does require some suspension of disbelief, but having them follow a man around 24/7 just killed it.
      • More than anything, the episode proved that all of the detectives, especially Olivia, need to get a life.
      • And it also proves that Cragen is incompetent. What police captain would allow his detectives to go on what amounts to personal vendetta against a single suspect? Had the the perp made a single call to One PP,Cragen would have found himself quickly retired and the Manhattan SVU would staffed w/ new detectives shortly thereafter.
      • See the Progeria theory under WMG for a possible explanation.
      • This is the episode where this show left reality far behind it.
      • All of that at least falls under Unacceptable breaks from reality; it may be utterly wrong with regards to the modern legal system, but at least it's clear what happened. I still can't follow the train of logic that leads to the ending, no matter what universe it takes place in.
      • They somehow magically found another sample or something like that. It didn't make a lot of sense to me, either. I was really disappointed with that episode, especially since the backlog of rape kits is such an important issue — they didn't come close to doing it justice.
    • Jennifer Love Hewitt's acting was pretty good, though. Too bad it was wasted on this piece of crap.
    • The detectives faced two big problems in this episode, one was the bad handling of rape kits and the other was the statue of limitations. The later is why, despite the overwhelming amount of evidence, they couldn't get Hewitt's rapist/stalker— the crimes happened too long ago. However Benson finds a way to nail the guy using duct tape they found in his shrine/warehouse thing. He had labeled the tape with a date of use, and Hewitt's character kept the tape he had used on her. They used the tape she had and the roll they found in the shrine to convict the man of kidnapping, which he had technically done at one point (using the tape) about ten years ago in order to rape her.

    This wiki's page for this show says when Liv was framed for murder, the others did all they could to stonewall her. Did I miss something? Were there two episodes where she was framed for murder? 
  • It's probably referring to the fact that they were all holding the idiot ball for the entire episode.
    • Explain plz.

    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 "Branded" Olivia sided with the mentally unstable woman who raped and tortured 2 people and was about to do it to a third and seemed offended that they might prosecute her, and because of her she ended up a complete Karma Houdini 
At the beginning of the episode Elliot was being a dick to the victims like he usually is but Olivia seemed less sympathetic then usually. After they found out the perpetrator was a woman and the men did not want to file charges she pretty much said it was because he had it coming for doing something bad to her and not because they found the experience traumatic or humiliating. Huang even pointed out that she was blaming the victim. It then turned out that two of the men had forced her to have sex with them when they were camp councilors 15 years earlier. Olivia apparently thought that meant she should not be tried because she was also a rape victim, and accused the new ADA Hardwick of not caring about victims of crimes despite the fact she was the one who was trying to dismiss the case. She was also angry that a judge redacted portions of her confection because they were irrelevant to the case and claiming they were sending an innocent woman to jail. She eventually convinces Hardwick to pull some dirty tricks by bringing in the daughter that was produced from the rape, which caused one of the victims to have a Villainous Breakdown in court saying he delivered to be raped and tortured. This somehow got the woman off for her brutal crimes with nothing more then a few minor trespassing charges and they acted like this was a good thing.
  • The judge's redaction of the confessions was Truth in Television. The woman may have had a sympathetic reason for her actions, but that reason (revenge, even for being gang-rapeed as a teenager) doesn't count as a defense under the law. Leaving the explanation in the court record would have inflamed the jury and resulted in her being acquitted, even though the law would consider her guilty. Had she tried to mount an insanity defense, for example, by claiming PTSD, she might have been able to get her account of the rape back into the court record.
  • Olivia was bothered that the men who raped her got off scot-free and are allowed to lie about what happened in court, and that the judge decided her motives for committing the assaults weren't relevant. Uh yeah, these guys raped me and I decided to take my revenge. How is her sole reason for attacking them irrelevant? And she didn't convince Hardwick of anything. Olivia went to her office to call her on what she was doing, then Hardwick gave her something to give to the defense, which turned out to be the DNA reports on the woman's rape daughter.
  • But Olivia was against them and convinced they were guilty before she found out they raped her and like Huang said she was blaming the victims. Itís not like it was an impulse crime it was thought out, carefully planned and executed. While I do not agree with the judges decision to reduct the tape I understand it considering that the rape happened 15 years ago and she had obviously put it behind her. If this was a man who tracked down raped and tortured women that abused him when he was a kid he might be seen as somewhat sympathetic but he definitely would not be getting off scot free like she did.
    • I recall that happening at least once (The Norman Bates-esque killer who murdered women with hatpins), and it played out nothing like this episode. The attitude of the SVU squad was basically, "We gotta arrest the abuser too," not "We gotta let the abused go."
  • The reason she was being skeptical of the men was they weren't being helpful. "I've never met the men who she also went after and I argued with earlier today", "I've never seen her before and have no idea why she'd go after us". And if the rape was her motivation to attack them, she obviously hadn't put it behind her.
  • They've had plenty of female victims who weren't cooperative. If anyone behaved that way towards a woman instead of a man, Benson would have been up in arms. Until they actually knew what had really happened, their behavior was completely hypocritical. Total double standard (not that anyone should be surprised — SVU always does this with adult male victims).
    • Benson's actions shouldn't be so surprising at this point. If the offender's a woman, expect her to look for any justification (read: excuse) for her actions. Otherwise, it's an open-and-shut case as far as she's concerned.
      • What happened to you, Olivia? You used to be cool.
  • The girl shouldn't have gotten off with trespassing charges. She branded and sodomized two men, for god's sake. Her past should have been treated as mitigating, not expunging — being a victim doesn't give one the right to harm other people, even your abuser(s). They could have at least placed her in a psychiatric facility, given that she'd shown herself to be capable of violence. How do they know that she's not going to have her PTSD triggered and end up attacking an innocent person? And would they have been so eager to let her off on trespassing charges if this had been a man who was raped by three women at 14, and then came back to brand and sodomize them? I can understand opting against punitive measures, but the girl needed to be rehabilitated before she rejoined society. Letting her out onto the streets with probation was completely idiotic.
  • This episode reminded me - again - how rape appears to be the only crime Benson cares about. That one goes all the way back to the first episode, where the victim of the week was the leader of an Balkan ethnic cleansing squad; the fact that he was a mass murderer only rated one passing mention.
  • The problem with this and many others is numerous recycled plots this show has gone through weíve already been through the notion that a victim doesnít have the right to commit crimes in the episode transition we didnít need another one. Then there was the episode where everybody chastised a husband for being mad at his wife for not telling him she was having her rapist baby despite the fact not only did she lie about the baby but the fact that she was raped at all he had every right to be upset. They rectified this with an episode involving a husband who found out that all his life his wife has been hiding from the police.

    Do any of the writers that work on this show having anything more than a passing familiarity w/ either law enforcement or American jurisprudence? 
  • The legal aspect of the show was a bit more realistic (in the Acceptable Breaks from Reality sense) in earlier seasons, but they traded in all semblance of reality at some point in season 6 or 7 in exchange for melodramatic plots. I think it's more an issue of They Just Didn't Care.

    Locum, in general. 
  • First off, there are so many insane twists that M.Night would call stupid. Second, how come these parents NEVER have to answer to the fact that they were basically trying to turn an orphan into a Replacement Goldfish for their presumably dead daughter? The episode just ends with "We found your daughter! She's back with you now! Here's your reward for smothering, abusing, and surgically remodeling a little girl you don't love!" These two (especially the mother) are NOT stable people, why should they get her back? And finally (and this is my biggest problem with a majority of the series), it takes what COULD have been and interesting case that has *gasp* A FEMALE VILLAIN that has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX, but they take the safe route and shoe horn in exploited girl working in porn crying about "MY EVIL REDNECK PEDO DADDY MADE ME BE BAD!" and the generic redneck pedophile #37. I guess it's ok to be totally mentally unstable, as long as you're not a pedophile.
    • Oh, didn't you know? The episode was set up so that the Special Guest Star that appeared in this and the following episode wouldn't be the main suspect when they did the whole "Child Rapist & Twitter Mob" thing. He was, but I suppose that was the point.
      • (original poster) They could have done that without making the episode suck so hard.
    • Those two were total KarmaHoudinis. They should have had their custodial rights for both children taken away (although for their Replacement Goldfish, I doubt they'd care), given Stabler and Benson's madness for putting kids in decent homes. The episode seems to be one of the ones that lets you make up your own ending, so maybe you're supposed to assume that's what happened.

    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.

    Am I the only one who didn't mind Stuckey so much? 
Maybe it's because I don't take the show as seriously I'm probably meant to, but I didn't see what the big deal was. He was kind of a dork, but it was refreshing to see someone willing to be funny when the rest of the cast are almost contractually obligated to be killjoys. Yes, he was pretty insensitive, going into dickish territory on certain cases, but did that really make him less likable then Benson or Stabler? Elliot pushing him around every time he showed up (with Cragen even looking the other way when he shoved him) just made me feel bad for the guy.
  • Admittedly, I didn't really mind him either. But from the moment he made his debut, the first thought I had of him was "Yep, he's gonna be The Scrappy."
  • I found him somewhat annoying, but he could have made an interesting comic relief if they toned him down a little bit and hadn't gone with the evil mastermind thing. I mostly felt sorry for the little twerp until his Face-Heel Turn.

    Trophy 
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.
  • I'm a bit shocked that we got nothing about Marlowe's whereabouts. And to be honest, I never had any problems with her. Personally I always thought people hated her for the same reason they hated Dani: She dared to be a woman with a close relationship/history with Stabler not named Benson.
    • 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.

    Gray. At one point, they say that if a girl is drunk, she can't consent to sex, even if she's into it at the time. Yet, when it's pointed that a guy can be drunk too while they're having sex, they respond by saying that being drunk doesn't excuse a crime... 
... which makes perfect sense if the girl was half-passed-out, but they seemed to be implying that even if a girl was into it at the time and the guy was drunk too, then the guy is still somehow committing a crime (based on the flow of the dialogue). Moreover, nothing is said about a scenario where a man might be drunk and the girl is sober. So, men are just a bunch of perverts and predators who can never be victims themselves when they're drunk, and women are too weak and stupid to consent to sex when under the influence, even if they're fully conscious. Way to insult both genders there, SVU.
  • What annoyed me most was them saying "A perv like him WILL MOST DEFINITLY rape again" and acting like he should be thrown in jail for life just over a thing like this and the girls in his school being allowed to treat him like crap. The kid could never catch a break.
    • When did he ever act like he deserved a break? This is the same guy who got away with rape with a slap on the wrist, who made it pretty clear he had no incentive to not do it again and didn't think he had done anything wrong in the first place, and used an abortive agent to terminate a girl's pregnancy by lying to her and telling her it was lube, which then killed her. Nothing about his actions even suggested he didn't deserve everything he got.
      • It wasn't implied, Olivia stated it outright. I wanted to ask Olivia if she thinks women who drink one too many and run over pedestrians while driving on the wrong side of the road should be given a free pass since under her worldview, women aren't responsible for their own actions while drunk.
      • It seems to me that if youíre culpable for driving drunk because you chose to do it, then anything else you did in a like state of intoxication is likewise a choice. If the argument is that the person didnít have a choice, being drunk and therefore incapable of choice, then the drunken driver didnít have a choice either.
      • The drunken driver had a choice, but the car is incapable of consent; it's a pretty brain-dead analogy. The point isn't that women aren't responsible for their actions while drunk, it's that being drunk compromises their judgment, and for a man to take advantage of that compromised judgment in order to indulge themselves is rape. I don't have a good answer for it if both parties are drunk, but a sober person who has sex with a drunk person has them at a disadvantage, no matter what genders they are. If you can retell the same story, but replace "was drinking" with "had a concussion" and it sounds creepy and sick, it's rape.

    The product placements are starting to get a tad overly conspicuous. 
I just have trouble believing that gritty city detectives would be such conspicuous consumers. The most egregious example was when Liv whipped out an iPad and held it up Truman Show-style while it played video footage.
  • Tell me about it. She also made a big show of using an iPhone to get an image of a license plate at one point.

    The way Benson handles the case in Beef bugs me 
  • First she instantly declares that the victimís boyfriend was guilty of raping and killing her without looking into her background or work and despite the fact that he seemed like the nicest gentlest man they ever had on the show and he had no history of violence. After finding another man's semen in the victim she pretty much said that it proved the boyfriend did it because he was a nice come person and all men are apparently naturally violent, thus he discovers she was cheating on him he instantly rapes and kills her. Luckily for the poor guy he got into a small fight with his neighbor or ells they would have declared him guilty on the spot and the elaborate frame job the killer set up would have been completely wasted. After he was cleared they began seriously investigation it and discovered that the man who looked pretty good for it was framed. They talk to his wife and she tells them that another woman had sent her letters and called her saying that she had an affair with her husband and now this other girl was, so she gave her the supplies to frame him. They zero in on the foreman without even looking for a female even as an accomplice despite the fact she said she spoke with a woman on the phone. At the end they determined that he was covering for his boss/mother because The Killer Was Left-Handed and she was killed by a right handed person. While they did eventually get the killer it would have been easier if they actually looked for a woman along with him.
    • There is also the fact that they could not tell that the seamen had been frozen despite the fact that in an earlier episode they were told by a lab tech that it is easy to till if it was because freezing sperm causes their tails to be bent.
      • The guy's wife never talked to anyone on the phone. The "mystery woman" just communicated to the wife in letters. As for the semen, I think she said it had been "collected" that night, so I guess it wouldn't have had time to totally freeze.

    The whole show bugs me... 
But what really gets to me sometimes is the darned endings. You'll have a fun episode like Doubt which actually takes the idea of how rape can be wrongfully used, or rightfully depending on who you think was telling the truth that just end with no real resolution. Sure, they're tyring to leave it up to the viewers, but it seems like too many episodes do this where things just "BAM, END!" and that's all there is. And that's not even mentioning the flipflop logic of the characters. It's like Elliot is meant to be only sympathetic when the perp is truly guilty, and Oliva can only be tolerated when the suspect has no true redeeming factors, otherwise, it's fair to say that both are A-holes have the time who get what they want (Elliot will pound any pervy man, evens the really harmless ones; and Liv just seems to dead set on locking up anyone who so much has been fingered for the slightest accusation). I know the show has largely become more dramatized in recent years, but that's hardly an excuse for such broken characters.
  • Agreed in regards to the show becoming less likeable. My thoughts:
    • Personally, I didn't mind Doubt. Some aspects weren't carried out as well as they could have been (such as the stairway scene and subsequent complaint, which would have worked better if she hadn't behaved seductively towards Stabler), but it was one of the better episodes since SVU's slide into fervent melodrama. The concept worked, and the ending helped to hammer in the point. It was one of the few times SVU kept a controversial topic controversial, instead of turning everyone into a straw man in order to back up the writers'/producers'/actors' opinions, or tipping the scales towards someone being guilty. In many ways, the events of the episode (excluding the melodramatic stuff) ended up being a lot more realistic than the straight-forward guilt seen in most other plots. Most real-life rape cases come down to whether or not the judge/jury believes the testimony of the alleged victim/alleged rapist.
    • When they used the same gimmick again for the Mischa Barton episode with the brain-damaged newborn, however, it ended up being total crap, since the episode barely touched on the issue of whether or not the kid should be kept alive up until the final couple minutes of the show. Moreover, they'd already done an episode earlier where the show pretty much sided with turning off life support for a child in that situation (the shaken baby episode from season 5). The ending was so out of left-field and anti-climatic that it just left me scratching my head and wondering what the hell the writers/producers had been smoking.
    • Yes, the characterization of the so-called protagonists is getting extremely sloppy. Both of them used to be likeable, despite having their flaws, but the smug, self-righteousness has gotten out of control. Doesn't help that Benson has turned into a completely different person, and Stabler has become a parody of himself. Fin was always a bit one-dimensional, but even his single dimension has been thinning these days, when they actually bother to include him at all. Munch's appearances have turned into something resembling Where's Waldo?
    • I think the main problem is that this show is becoming more and more like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation as the seasons progress: Smug characters, overuse of melodrama, gimmick episodes, there-should-be-a-law and ripped-from-the-headlines becoming the status quo for script-writing (both of which were mainstays of the L&O franchise to begin with, but it's been so overused and poorly handled lately), no semblance of reality, etc. SVU has always had some unrealistic elements, but they used to fall within Acceptable Breaks from Reality (mostly). Nowadays, they've left reality completely behind, and turned it into the Benson and Stabler do CSI: Crime Scene Investigation variety hour, complete with tasteless one-liners every five seconds.

    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.

    Why does the main cast treat the regular defense attorneys badly? 
One of them even defended Olivia when she was accused of murder, but the detectives keep on saying "Oh look it's the enemy."
  • The logic of the show seems to be that all defense attorneys know that their clients are guilty and try to get them off anyway, so they're just as bad, if not worse, then the people they defend, and only stand in the way of justice. Keep in mind that Stabler and Benson never make any wrong accusations or finger the wrong suspect (except for those few cases when they do), so the defense must obviously be trying to keep the guilty from getting punished. It didn't count when Olivia was on trial because she ''so obviously'' didn't do it.
    • That attorney in that specific ep who defended Olivia was a private one who was hired to defend Olivia (did they ever explain who hired him?) so the anger is also rooted in the fact that his clients think they can screw the rules cuz they have money. But that attorney specifically was always polite and professional, unlike some of the other ones on the show who utterly delight in keeping rogues on the street so Liv's attitude toward him was clearly biting the hand that was feeding her.

    About the episode Confession, where the teenager came forward because he was developing pedophilic feelings towards his brother 
Was I the only one who was annoyed with how they treated the kid, when he had done the right thing by trying to get help before he ended up acting on the impulses? I mean, yeah, child molesters (as in pedophiles who actually molest children, rather than merely having the urge to do so) are utter scum, and it makes sense to do some investigating to make sure he was telling the truth about not having done anything yet, and that he wouldn't have contact with his brother, but it wasn't like the kid had chosen to have those urges — it was obvious that he didn't want to be attracted to children, and knew it would be wrong to act on his impulses. Not only that, but the fact that he came forward was incredibly brave and selfless, given that he was pretty much damning himself to a lifetime of scrutiny. Most adults wouldn't have had the moral sense to do that, let alone your average teenager.
  • That was kinda annoying for me, too. The first thing Olivia does is tell his parents he's a pedophile and act like he's acted on his impulses, then they act like he never did a thing and that Grayleck is a bitch for prosecuting him.
  • Yeah, that episode drove me nuts- I guess you could argue that Olivia and Stabler have seen so many child molesters, they'd get paranoid over the mere suggestion of someone being attracted to children, but here they just seemed like lunatics. The fact that he was outright-terrified of actually doing something to his step-brother, who he cared about and seriously didn't want to hurt, should've treated them better. They even have a speech where they discuss how therapy and even castration doesn't stop a pedophile from being a pedophile and that they'll always be a danger to society. They wind up telling his parents about his urges and his step-father kicks him out of the house. The end of the episode winds up with him getting killed after having molested someone somewhere but the detectives don't know who. The fact that he molested after all was treated as something inevitable that was going to happen no matter what, but it could easily have been avoided if they just listened to the kid's pleas and gotten him help instead of telling his parents and getting him thrown out on the streets. To cap this off, the reasoning for why they couldn't give him psychological help was because pedophiles can only get therapy after they've become child molesters. Not a cop, but pretty sure that's not true.
    • The worst part is that there are some effective treatments for libido driven pedophiles out there available to people who have NOT molested children. According to the Other Wiki chemical castrations combined with other treatments have proven highly effective for removing urges when the urges are driven by libido as they are with guy in Confession. For sadistic/violent offenders who rape children out of anger or the desire for control these aren't effective, but the same goes for regular rapists as well. Had Olivia and Stabler been willing to help that teen everything that followed could have been fucking prevented, but no. They chose to be huge fucking asshats instead.
    • The idiotic thing about assuming that most or all pedophiles eventually act on their impulses is that any studies done on the subject only include the ones who have already been convicted of molestation; it's common sense that someone who has done something in the past is more likely to do it again, whether we're talking about molestation, robbery, or jaywalking. Figuring out the stats for all pedophiles, instead of just the ones who have been charged with a crime, is damn near impossible. There is simply no way of knowing how many pedophiles are actually out there, since people aren't exactly inclined to come forward and identify themselves as such. For an accurate study, you'd need a group who hasn't been charged with a sex crime in addiction to the ones that have, and it's highly unlikely that enough people would be willing to out themselves as pedophiles to make up a proper sample pool. The messed up thing is that pedophile-hysteria actually hinders the fight against child molestation by making it so difficult to properly study the problem. That episode was an example of a larger societal problem: The inability to distinguish having an urge from acting on it. If we changed our way of thinking, maybe more of them would come forward and get help, possibly reducing the incidence of child abuse. Conversely, those who actually do molest children deserve every ounce scorn they get — having an urge doesn't give anyone the right to act on it.
  • While I do dislike the way everyone in SVU reacted to the kid, it's probably closer to Truth in Television than you might think. Someone else pointed out above that walking into the sex crimes squad and asking for them to help him with his desire to commit a sex crime is similar to a woman walking into the homicide unit and admitting she's seriously considering murdering her son. SVU are not taught how to cure paedophiles. They're taught to see paedophiles—all paedophiles—as the absolute scum of humanity, the worst kind of person, always evil. It's how they do their jobs; heck, we've seen how badly they treat people who turn out not to be paedophiles. What they should have done was recommended him to a psychiatrist, probably an FBI one like Huang, so that they would be able to help him and yet be close enough to arrest him should he give in to his urges.

    Was anyone else bugged by the portrayal of Kathleen's bipolar disorder? 
Granted, no two people suffer from this disorder quite the same way, and there are indeed some very extreme forms of mania. What bugs me the most is the rapid diagnosis of her condition. Bipolar disorder is very complex, and can often easily be mistaken for many similar mood disorders. As someone who is currently keeping a mood chart for the purposes of diagnosis, I can say firsthand it takes weeks or months to make a certain diagnosis and determine which medication would be appropriate to start with. It seemed as if the moment Kathleen got to the hospital, the doctor instantly said "Well, she's bipolar!" after examining her for five minutes.
  • They do that with other disorders too, particularly personality disorders. You're right, it's very irritating — you can't just walk into a room, chat with someone for half an hour, and then know that they're bi-polar/borderline/sociopathic/etc. The description Huang gives of these disorders is also quite irritating.
  • You are forgetting about Huang's psychic abilities and general omniscience, which allow him to diagnose perps from five minutes' observation (not even interviewing them directly, just observing them through the glass), or even from bits of crime scene evidence.

    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.

    Does every episode have to involve a big dramatic situation involving a hostage scene, detectives getting shot, some big, dramatic personal drama on the part of the detectives, etc.? 
It's bad enough that the season finales have to involve fake kisses and crazy ADAs handing dead children to their delusional mothers, but every single episode seems to involve a hostage scene or something equally over-the-top these days. We have Elliot running off to meet up with a kidnapper after the guy texts him, an ADA being murdered, a TV host being held at knife-point, all in two episodes. This season, we've had Benson doing a standoff with a victim who had just bought a gun, Benson hallucinating after being an idiot and inhaling the vapour of cooking mushrooms, Eliot pretending to hallucinate in open court, Benson briefly awarded a kid and then getting the child taken away, Benson thinking she's hunting down her dad (AGAIN), that annoying FBI agent being raped, Stabler being shot (AGAIN), the detectives walking in on a rapist after he rapes a girl in the hospital, Stabler going undercover (AGAIN) as a sex addict and having a creepy girl try to seduce him, Stabler's daughter inserting herself into investigations several different times, plus some other stuff I've probably missed. And then there are all of Elliot's random injuries over the past few seasons... temporary blindness, getting shot roughly a thousand times, getting blown up, etc. And now, in every episodes, it always ends up being personal. Oh, and the "turns out the good guy was really the bad guy" twists are so common that it's shocking when a character turns out not to be secretly evil (I half-expected it to turn out that that news reporter murdered her own sister and killed Sonya). What the hell, SVU? Drama is great, but melodrama is bloody annoying and will ultimate get you cancelled.
  • And let's check out the It's Personal episodes this season, which amount to almost EVERY SINGLE ONE: E1, everyone is pissy because the neighbourhood watch guy steps into their territory. E2, neighbourhood watch guy turns out to be evil, shocking everyone (except the viewers). E3, Benson stalks a rape victim, and then the whole teams stalks her rapist. E4, Papa Wolf Stabler is mad because a dad unknowingly gave his kids to a sex ring. E5, everyone is pissy because Benson accidentally got high, and then suddenly hates cola for some reason. E6, everyone bonds with the rapist female just because she happens to also be a rape victim. E7... oh boy, yet another Oliva Child Of Rape dramafest. E8, Star is raped and Stabler gets shot, obvious It's Personal connection there. E9 involved Elliot's daughter, albeit in a very loose way. E10 had Calvin's mom turn up again, and supermom Benson lose custody. E11 saw the return of Papa Wolf Stabler. E12 didn't have any It's Personal crap, as far as I can remember. E13 has the usual "I'm undercover, so now I'm involved" schtick going on. E14 had the team upset because of all the crooked cops. E15 also avoided the It's Personal stuff, again, as far as I can remember. E16, Elliot runs off to deal with the perp one-on-one, resulting in him getting attached to the case. And E7... ohe boy. It's Personal for Paxton because it's the case that haunts her and makes her drink and It's Personal for Benson because her buddy got murdered. So that's two out of 17 episodes that didn't involve this overused ploy.

    "Baggage" 
After they find that the serial rapist/murderer has been using his job delivering luggage for an airline to troll for victims, they go to arrest him. He's freed on bail while they check his alibi and when they break it, they have to rescue him from another rape attempt because he's still delivering luggage for the airline. WTF? The airline didn't put him on paid/unpaid leave or fire his ass? Seriously, the airline didn't seem to even know he'd been arrested on suspicion of rape. Why didn't the detectives or anyone tell the airline to stop sending him out? If they hadn't broken his well-crafted alibi in time, he would have killed another woman.

    "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.

    Are the DAs contractually obligated to spar with the detectives at every turn? 
If the perp has a long rap sheet and a horrific killer, they have to chew out the detectives for trivial mistakes, find fault with every piece of evidence, pull explanations out of their ass for why they refuse to charge the suspects under the assumption "The defense will claim his penis detached itself and ran free; you need more than a DNA match, witness statements and surveillance footage" and drop the charges at the drop of a hat. If the perp is a sympathetic, sweet, innocent suspect with a childlike personality who was brainwashed and traumatized and their victims were assholes, they have to throw the book at the defendant and fight like a dog to get that almighty conviction by accepting perjured testimony and redacting the slightest bit of evidence that would give the jury a reason to see them as anything more than a cold-blooded killer.

    The end of Screwed bugs me. 
The detectives did some questionable things in past episodes, so the guy didn't kill anyone? And why is Novak in trouble? She didn't do anything.
  • 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.

    The reaction to O'Halloran's death in "Zebras" is awful 
I'm not even going to go into the whole "SVU is getting creepier/trying to get creepier" What bugs me is that the lab tech is stabbed and NO ONE cares! It's not even mentioned again. He was their lab tech since Season 3 or something. They talked to him so much and knew him, and they're like "Oh, he's dead. Oh no! Stabler is in trouble!" It really gets me angry.

    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.

    Entrapment 
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.

    "Confrontation" 
Does anyone else agree that there are a few things wrong with this episode?
  • The perp's whole MO seems bizarre and difficult to carry out. He rapes women repeatedly after getting a urine sample to determine ovulation. How does he know these women aren't on some form of birth control? There are some non-hormonal contraceptives, like copper IUDs. In addition, I would assume that after being raped most women would take the morning after pill.
  • The treatment of Dani by Casey bothered me. We saw when Dani caught the perp, she clearly announced "police!" and was holding her badge. Casey accused her of using excessive force, even though the perp had a knife to her. Dani's behavior seemed reasonable to me. Even "Unstabler" got on her case!
  • There was one victim that actually did become pregnant, so the detectives wanted an amniotic fluid sample to determine paternity. Casey wasn't comfortable with the idea of forcing a rape victim to give a sample, but in other episodes she and the other ADAs were more than willing to charge victims with various offenses to get them to cooperate. Usually it's the detectives that are uncomfortable. It just seemed like the behavior of most of the characters were acting really out of character.

    Eh, let him die 
  • 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.

    The Conclusion of RAW 
Is it me, or did the whole "Oh, and it turns out the foster parents of the black kid were lying scumbags, too" just seem tacked on? I mean, they had a nice episode that revolved around how prejudice, while free to express, often leads to terrible misdeeds, then suddenly they make the sympathetic foster parents out to be bastards. Unless it was a reference to a real life event, it just felt out of place and added strictly for shock value.

    Is it just me or does Uncivilized just reek of Unfortunate Implications? 
Okay, so the episode is about how two male teens go on a sex-offender website & find that the odd guy living in the neighborhood was once convicted of raping a boy years ago when he took a lot of drugs. This leads to U.I. #1: The website apparently had nearly, if not, every facet about the crime laid out in perfect detail. Why would any website like that have such detail enough to where it would be easy enough to re-enact the crime? Ignoring the fact that this seems really screwed up, it could (and in this episode, did) lead to someone deciding to replicate someone's M.O. and blame the crime on the offender.

Now after this, the two teens eventually wind up killing a kid & point at the ex-offender. As the investigation unfolds & evidence starts showing up that maybe he didn't do it, a D.A. tells Craigan that he wants to set up a court hearing to determine if the ex-offender could give in to any impulses he has to rape children, so they could lock him up indefinitely, regardless if he was innocent of the current crime. When it's revealed that the chain used to choke the victim to death nor the genetic material found on the body couldn't have come from the suspect and Craigan lets him go, everyone in the precinct does the "You got away with it, you bastard" staring at him as he's leaving. So now comes #2: Why? The guy didn't do it! Am I missing some sort of info that if a person is released due to exonerating evidence, they should be met with scorn?

Now this all leads to Stabler & Benson telling the victim's parents that while the offender didn't kill their son, that hearing is still happening. After court, the offender is walking down the steps with his attorney when the father of the victim walks up and empties an entire fucking clip of handgun ammo into the guy's chest. This leads to #3: Do the fucking writers of the show think that if somebody was an offender in the past, something bad has to happen to him? The whole shooting was entirely unnecessary! And let's not forget #4: It would be one thing if the offender did kill the kid and the dad shot him to death, but the offender was entirely innocent in this case. What possible path of logic could have lead to the dad killing the guy? It's like, say Guy X have a cat and someone kills it & it initially looks like Guy Y did it because he tortured animals when he was a kid but then it's discovered that it was actually Guy Z. But then all of a sudden, Guy X stabs Guy Y in the stomach repeatedly. Why would that fucking happen?! A Shocking Swerve that didn't need to exist.
  • Where have you been? SVU is almost nothing BUT Shocking Swerves that didn't need to exist.

    'Russian Brides.' Just... just 'Russian Brides.' 
  • 1) Didn't they already do an episode on European mail-order brides where one goes around scamming men out of their money and having some relation to the Russian Mafia killing people? I may be confusing mail-order bride with hooker, since I'm thinking of 'Russian Love Poem,' but... they still have the same basic plot, with the few differences being the 'kidnapped' child, the lady actually having done the killing and a few other minor things e.e
  • 2) The treatment of those nerds... just bugs me. So much. What the hell made Fin and Blonde!Olivia (Because let's face it, the new blonde lady and Amaro are just the writers trying to replace the Benson and Stabler dynamic) so pissy as to threaten them with Prison Rape when they offered to wait and let them get a warrant, dammit?! Sure, the guy with the lollipop sounded like an obnoxious teen, but... I mean, they've handled guys twice as obnoxious as him and at least had the courtesy to not rough him up like that until they got him in an interrogation room. I mean, you could say that the nerds were likely to try and erase all their crap and leave by the time the cops got there with a warrant, but... still bugs me. It felt like them roughing up those guys was the writers poking fun at Hollywood Nerds or something e.e

    'The entire second half of "stolen"' 
OK, so they find the kid who was illegally adopted has a loving home with wonderful parents. Naturally the biological dad wants custody, and it's a long, tense trial. But in the end, they place the kid with the biological father, which really infuriated me. The kid had explicitly expressed his wish to stay with his adoptive family, who seemed stable and loving, if not particularly rich, but rich enough to provide for him. Furthermore, the father was a single dad with two other kids, who had recently gone through a messy divorce with an absolute bitch, it seemed. (Seriously, I don't advocate violence against women, but I just wanted to slug that haughty, snivelling little shrew the moment she said "I have contempt for this" (A DNA test to investigate a murder)) I know we aren't supposed to like her, but who would want someone like that in their life? L Aos, for all the posturing that the father was this "good person" all he put forth was "I was cheated..." "I never got the time..." waaa waaa waaa. me, me, me. Did it never occur to the man that he could be a part of his son's life without tearing the kid away from everything he ever knew? Maybe it's because I have loving parents and even though I'm not adopted, I, as an empathetic person, could imagine a situation like this and how it would feel that this episode bugged me so much, but no one seemed to take what the kid wanted, or even Dr. Huang's testimony into account at all, instead taking real-world-irrelevant paternity DNA into account as more important. So now the kid has to be torn from the only home he ever knew to go live with a complete stranger, a stranger, no less, who has never met the boy in question before. Nice job, courts. I can see the boy growing up resenting the asshole who tore him away from the parents he obviously wanted to stay with. Yeah, that's a recipe for a healthy relationship all right, and consequently, I can see him running away a lot and acting out, just like Huang said, or, given how he was scowling at Kragen at the end, marching right back into the courthouse and trying to file an appeal of some kind. This episode made absolutely no sense at all to me and left a really bad taste in my mouth. They missed an opportunity for a really heartwarming conclusion with the whole 'best interests of the child' message going on. Instead, they seemed to do the exact opposite, acting in the best interests of legal minutiae and letter-not-intent nitpicking. I don't know what they were going for with this episode, but it just succeeded in pissing me off.
  • Horribly, this is Truth in Television, some states will even force a kid to move across the country in their senior year and screw up their schooling because of DNA... Luckily, its normally an affair issue of some sort and its not nearly as common as it used to be. But, under most circumstances what is best for the kid is nothing compared to DNA, lawsuits and kidnapping charges :(

    When will there ever be a good representation of the LGBTQ community? 
When I write this, I speak not about the victims, but rather the gay rights groups that come to back them up. All of them are wild and radical, and they only care about the fact that the victim is gay, not about any other feature. They are infuriatingly unrealistic and do not at all resemble how most of the LGBTQ community acts. Is there one episode that shows a mild-mannered gay rights activist?
  • Fin's son Ken seems to be their go-to character for having a positive gay role model. So positive, in fact, that we never see any boyfriends on screen or ever hear him mention dating men.
    • His fiancť appeared in a episode recently, although he was the Victimofthe Week.
  • I have to agree with you but I the worse depiction of LGBTQ would have to be in the episode "Transitions". The father started out as right for the wrong reason but the depiction was so bad he jumped right into Strawman has a Point. To recap the victims child is introduced right after he beat up his mother for catching him sneaking into the house at 2:00 AM. When asked why she did this all Henry/Hailey would say was she was ďstriking a blow for her freedom.Ē But thatís not the end we are then given discriptions of other violent altercations Haileyís been in including visiously beating a bunch of girls when they didnít wanít her to user the ladyís bathroom. But what really pissed me off was Blain I know what they were trying to do when they made her a rape victim but it actually destroyed any sympathey you would have for her because it shwed that this was never about Hailey she was just living vicariously through her. To the point of ignoring everything that didnít assosiate with gender confusion. I admit to not knowing a lot about trans* people and I am little biased. But mostly because of the other episode that dealt with transgende issues where they didnít tell their partner about it. But even I know this couldnít be an accurate depiction. Hailey had a pletera of mental problems including repeated suicide, violent tendemcies, wishing the death of her father, and even self mutalation. Now her gender confusion probably agrevated these problems but they werenít the cause. And for Blain to try and Kill Haileyís father then go to her and tell everything is fine now. Shows that she was trying to get revenge for what happened to her. Greyleck was right when she said not every person that has been a victim can have am automatic get out of jail free card when they go looking for retribution. The writers are lucky this was so bad that no one could take it seriously because if I for a second thaught that that was acurate I wouldnít want someone like that anywhere near me. The Children of Ariel werenít any better as stated this depiction of transgendered people basically they were giving powerful drugs with no direction on how to use them to incredibly violatile people. And there only excuse was no one knows what its like.
    • I say the mother was worse in that episode when she finds out Hailey was out with a boy she asked her "Hailey, are you gay?" I actually researched the subject after watching this episode and found out that it is not always the case for wanting to change genders. But for someone who doesnít know this is a logical leap. But for mother to not know that and to specifically call her gay means that one day her son walked in and says mom I want to be a girl and she replies OK.

     Haung 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.

     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?!?

     Has there ever been an adult male victim who was presented as completely good? 
It seems like any time an adult man is raped, he (usually) isn't portrayed as deserving it, but is still portrayed as iffy at best, and outright monstrous at worst. Off the top of my head: Two men were branded and sodomized by a woman... but it turned out that they raped her years ago, and the woman gets off with trespassing, AND this is treated as a good thing. A man was raped in prison, but coped with it by turning around and raping other men. These men were all portrayed as rude and uncooperative to the police. Further, this was all a B-plot to Benson's family drama, sending the message that they weren't important enough on their own. A male stripper was raped at a bachelorette party, but is shown to have a history of attention-seeking behavior. This didn't make him any less a victim, but many of the characters treated him like it did. (We are supposed to think it's wrong, but it's still frustrating.) Several men were raped by a self-hating gay man, but all were cheating on their wives at the time. Amaro even says that if they hadn't cheated, they wouldn't have been raped- something he would NEVER even THINK about doing to a woman. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the male stripper is any less innocent because he is a stripper, but it seems like any time a male victim appears, there's always some moral grey area, while with female victims, there's a realistic variety. Some are prostitutes and some are morally wrong and some don't have clear-cut cases, but some are completely average/"innocent" people as well, whereas men are always in a grey area. It just seems to be sending the message that "properly-behaving" men don't get raped, which is frustrating, considering all the show does to try and show how wrong that thinking is with female victims.

     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.

     Was anyone else pissed off by Influence. 
They let a sociopath go free after she killed a bunch of children. If this was suppose to be a depiction of someone with bi-polar disorder they did a horrible job because I donít think someone with BP would be so calculating in their responses. She followed a set pattern every time she did something wrong. First she would blame someone else. Then when that lie blew up in her face she cried her eyes out to get others to feel sorry for her. Also why didnít the parents of the children she killed react more. The fatherís only reaction seemed to be that it wasnít fare that a celebrity was helping her. In the end what really pissed me off was when we found out that Novak was engaged to an untreated schizophrenic. Thatís a conflict of interest and for all intents and purposes she should have recused herself instead she pushed for leniency.

     Amaro's One-Eighty 
Why was Amaro the one who got all the blame for shooting the boy? He was going off the word of two police officers who he had no reason to distrust, and it was the other cop that fired first because she thought she saw a gun. Amaro was just reacting to what he thought was an officer being shot at. Then the other cop turns around and acts like it's all Amaro's fault that the situation escalated like that.
  • She was trying to cover her own ass. IAB has a real hard-on for the SVU detectives (because they're sick to death of watching them get away with shit that should get them fired/arrested) so she figured she could skate on it if she got them focused on Amaro.

     The episode "Gambler's Fallacy", in general 
First of all, what was with the whole Amaro-likes-Rollins bullshit? This comes completely out of left field after teasing her and Fin for 3 seasons, and moreover, Fin and Amaro have the exact same reaction to Rollin's activity, and Olivia only yells at Amaro for being over-involved? That's messed up.

Secondly, the plot of the episode...who the fuck let M. Night Shyamalan direct this show. It is absolutely ridiculous that Rollins walked away scot-free from all the events, Karma Houdini doesn't even begin to cover it. The whole FBI Deus ex Machina twist was just awful, totally obliterating any Willing Suspension of Disbelief.

     Lordy on high, the episode "P.C." 
What the hell is up with this episode? Did a lesbian kill the writers parents? The entire goddamn thing feels like THEM CRAZY LESBIAN ACTIVISTS AMIRITE?? WHAT'S A HATE CRIME. Law and Order's not exactly a paragon of good representation but it's just such an upsetting, annoying episode.

To elaborate, the fact that the show tries to portray Babs as the most annoying person in the world comes off as really biased. At the worse, Babs comes off as high-strung and overzealous, but it's justified in that she and the other lesbian activists obviously see a pattern of hate crimes in the area while the police treat the murders individually (a sad case of Truth in Television concerning hate crimes, paticular towards lgbt+ members). Babs acts rude and curt towards Stabler, but Stabler and the other male detectives are incredibly dismissive to her concerns, writing her off as crazy. It feels like she's being punished by the narration for being loud. That being said, we do get a hint that she might be transphobic/biphobic... But that's one comment by a police officer that's never really elaborated on. We don't get if she actually is or if she just puts lesbians at the forefront of her activism.

Hell, her loud and out attitude can be explained that she's scared of her changing identity. To many who are lgbt+, feeling out of place and wrong and attaching yourself to an identity where you're surrounded by a supportive, strong community... Only to start feeling wrong again and wondering if you just faked your previous identity is a very real fear. Many just attach themselves stronger to their current identity, feeling it's just a phase, further driving their self loathing. Think of it as the inverse of the closeted homophobe.

Also, naming the episode P.C. (shorthand for politically correct) makes it come across even harder that the writers were offended by the idea of radical lgbt+ activists. Man! How dare those craAAAaaaAAAaaazy lesbians get mad for being oversexualized, oppressed, raped and killed! And then ask for equal treatment? Aren't they just screeching harpies?

  • Because you decided to delete my response, I will again answer that there are plenty of real-life Babses and they are not at all helpful to the LGBT+ movement. They are insane and not because of oppression. They make normal, rational queer people like me look bad. The episode embarrassed me not because it was inaccurate but because it was perfectly accurate of Tumblr and other "Social Justice Warriors". Why is okay to portray Christians as anti-abortion Jerkasses every time they appear on the show but not to portray in ONE episode offensive lesbians? And again, I am a lesbian myself.



Law & OrderHeadscratchers/Live-Action TVLazyTown

random
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy
221744
1