Who doesn’t love L&O? I mean, come on! I love all three versions of it, because each has at least one character that I adore and a premise that’s intriguing. My favorite has to be the original because I adore Jack McCoy, the District Attorney. I loved the earlier episodes starring Jerry Orbach (RIP); after he died, the people they used to fill his spot couldn’t measure up. The new cop, though, has renewed my interest. Law & Order: Criminal Intent is my second favorite because Vincent D’Onofrio is an astoundingly excellent actor. Following that would be Law & Order: Special Victims Unit only because I don’t watch it as often as the others.
There is one episode that sticks in my mind, bothering me. I was twittering about it, but I haven’t blogged it yet. I don’t know what the name of it was, but I remember it very clearly. I didn’t really like it because the new cop was some bitchy chick I wanted to slap. By the time I was done watching it, I was speechless, my mindset devastated.
A murderer escapes from death row to say goodbye to his mother (who has terminal cancer) and to get her forgiveness for all the killing he’s done. She refuses. This sets him off on a rampage where he takes some kids (10 of them maybe, about ten years old.) hostage. ONe of the girls’ fathers knows she’s in there and she’s in trouble because she’s diabetic. The police tried to negotiate. He killed all of the children. (I was in shock by now. They usually save the hostages! I was like, why?) So, he goes on trial for murder, but it doesn’t matter because he already had two life sentences for all the murders he had committed. This woman running for governor comes into the picture, pulling for the death penalty, which is outlawed in New York. At this point, the father from earlier is distraught, who wouldn’t be after their daughter is killed? One day, the murderer comes out after his trial and is shot by the father. The father is arrested for murder.
The father is being defended in court by the woman running for governor. Her stand? “He took action when the state did not act quickly enough.” Jack’s stand: “He broke the law. If we exempt him from prosecution, then people will think it’s acceptable to kill all the bad people.” The jury found the father guilty of murder, even though he was set up by the governor lady to bolster her numbers.
And this bothers me; not that he was guilty, or that the governor was so awful, but how the two views are so…different. Which one is right? You can argue both sides. But, after the father is convicted, the governor lady has been accused of setting the man up to kill the murderer. The man’s time is reduced, but they’re both put in prison.
I watched this a very long time ago and it’s STILL BOTHERING ME. I understood the conviction. You can’t make exceptions to the rule, because then everyone will want to be an exception. The system woudl fall apart. But, he did break the law. I can understand that also. What bothers me is: Should the people take over when the people’s government fails?