Law & Order: All You Need To Know About The System

31 03 2008

law_svu.jpglaw_svu.jpglaw_svu.jpglaw_svu.jpg

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.

law_ci.jpg

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?

law-and-order.jpg

Advertisements

Actions

Information

5 responses

31 03 2008
Fannah Heldman

In that circumstance, I don’t think that the government did fail. Where did they fail? They caught the guy and he was going back to prison no matter what. Sure, he got out once and did something terrible, but now they’ll make sure to keep him ten times as safe and perhaps lock down on other horrible criminals. And even if that counts as failing in some peoples’ books, that still doesn’t justify the father killing him. The government had taken care of the situation at that point. If the police had not caught the guy but the father had somehow tracked him and then shot him, that would be different. THE SITUATION WAS ALREADY IN CONTROL!

I love Criminal Intent – Vincent D’Onofrio!

31 03 2008
soojin

I personally am on the jury’s side. Daddy broke the law, that is an undeniable fact.
Quote: “He broke the law. If we exempt him from prosecution, then people will think it’s acceptable to kill all the bad people.” It’s just a jury’s job not to get moved by sympathy. If I were the dad, I would 1) choose less cruel and more lasting ways to revenge such as blowing a mega punch on his face privately or 2) forgive him like a Jesus. (disclaimer: i never lost a daughter before so I don’t know if I would be sane in those conditions)

If that woman was justified, then every Americans with guns will, literally, shoot each other. That will happen.

And that case of the episode leads to another question of, American public accessibility to guns, don’t you think? Virginia Tech Massacre is one issue to remember.

Supposedly you read my post so I’ll incorporate a quote from Ryuk: “But then you will be the only bad guy left”

Killing is not justified in any ways (maybe except for accident or in situation of warfare).

And answering your last question: Should the people take over when the people’s government fails?

Answer: Yes, people ALWAYS did.

soojin

ps. i didn’t watch L&O =[ only american tv shows i watched were all episodes of Heroes, and some episodes of Friends and Spongebob.

1 04 2008
{ K }

ooohh havent watch it yet but.. is it great? hmm i guess ima start watchin the series hehe 🙂

3 04 2008
curbxstomp

@Fannah: I wasn’t posing the question towards the jury–I was posing it towards the reason behind the father’s action. I for one don’t think they failed either. However, there should be something more effective than some parts of the system. Isn’t Vincent D’Onofrio yummy? His character is so intelligent!
@Soojin: I love that quote; it’s amazing. Sometimes the people act, but not usually quick enough until it’s too late. Yes, the father did break the law and that is undeniable, inexcuseable. YOU DON’T WATCH IT? Well, you should. I love them, because they really make me think; which is the opposite of why I watch Spongebob. This guy I know told me it’s more entertaining to watch me watching Spongebob rather than the show itself. I just find the show hilarious.
@{K}: Welcome back! Yes, you should watch it! It’s amazing, no lie.

5 04 2008
Pat

What a great post! I love watching SVU better than criminal intent though. Those conflicting emotions really get me too and my hubby and I argue these kinds of things all the time (I’m a retired teacher and he is a retired judge), so you can imagine how lively those debates get! LOL

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: