S26.E15 Undertow

[Xeliou66]

Episode description 

A complicated case of sex and drug use divides the squad; Carisi must convince a jury to focus on the law and not the defendant’s allegations. 

[Xeliou66]

This episode just felt like a boring drag - didn’t care about any of the people involved and I wasn’t invested in what the outcome was - fitting that it was a mistrial as it was a murky case, although Carisi made a good point that if the genders were reversed it probably would’ve been different. But overall it was just dull and felt like a waste of Bruno and Fin, nice seeing the courtroom which has been one of the best things about this season, but I had no interest in the case

[wknt3]

The Good:
The central concept. Having 2 participants legally unable to consent, with neither being given a free pass by the squad or the writers and trying to apportion legal and moral culpability is a really good idea.

Carisi and the legal side. It was a good presentation of everyone doing their jobs and following the law even if nobody was satisfied with the choices.

Bruno. While the writing wasn't always as sharp as the last couple of weeks, and there were quite a few lines that could have been swapped between characters without anyone noticing they at least gave him a bit of focus as well as his usual awesomeness.

Benson can't save the day by whispering until everyone agrees!

The Bad:
Benson taking the lead from the beginning. You have another captain, a sergeant, and a senior detective in the squadroom and you are taking random walk ins? It's not like there wasn't enough reason to get her actively involved soon enough. Let somebody else take the report and start off before Benson takes over.

 

Overall this was another above average episode. If they could have had someone other than Benson as the lead investigator and tightened up some of the writing a bit it would have been an excellent episode on par with episode 13, but it is still better than the last episode and another episode that is actually good. I'm hoping that Mariska will be kept busy with OC crossovers and we can actually have a few more episodes where she is the CO and not the primary detective with the writing at the level it has been, because it is possible we could have the best stetch of episodes since early Season 17. It would be nice to have something in 2025 that actually is better than expected...

[MediaZone4K]

OMG could this be, an L&O verdict that doesn't end in guilty! Again, it makes episodes less riveting if we know the end result is always guilty.

I would've found it very unrealistic if this complex case ended in a slam dunk guilty verdict per usual. I love the murkiness of this story as it gave more to consider rather than the obvious cases we often get.

A mistrial was the right verdict because it didn't solve or excuse anything, it just spoke to the  difficulty of the matter. I also love that the show ended on the verdict.

I don't know what to think about this case. On the one hand, it's always an adult's responsibility to verify the age of the person they sleep with. But what happens if a minor lies to you about their age, or in this case drugs you? To take it a step further what if you're shown a fake ID? So much to sift through.

Granted, what made the episode and the woman's defense weaker was the ambiguity of the boy's appearance due to his soft facial features. He was very clearly someone who you should ask for ID because their age is a gamble.

The woman's defense of not asking for ID because the boy looked mature would've been stronger with a male actor who had more mature features.

Edited March 14 by MediaZone4K

[EtheltoTillie]

This is an example of ESH as they say in Reddit. A crazy law school exam question. 

[Wizardpatch]

The 16 year old on the stand just reminded me of the SNL Pete Davidson sketch.

"I replay it like a movie in my head, every single day"

"I felt like Forrest Gump when he was running across America and people started following him because he represents hope."

Keenan Thompson should have been the judge saying "My man!".

 

[KittyKat425]

Agree, if it was an adult male teacher with a 16 year old girl assumed to be older no one would have cared if she has vodka laced with drugs that the male drank without her knowledge or she had no plans to report it because it was consensual but was forced to when her parents found out. Jury would have convicted in a heart beat - and Olivia would have led the charge.

Edited March 14 by KittyKat425

[marny]

There was one line that made me so angry. During the investigation, Bruno said something about the 16-year old like, “He doesn’t think he’s a victim.” And Olivia responds, “Well he’s about to learn he is.” Yes, definitely make him feel victimized about something that he’s emotionally ok with. Like, I get that he’s technically too young to consent and there’s some question as to who initiated what, but please don’t force him into trauma if he isnt already there. 
I feel like this case shouldn’t have been prosecuted, honestly. Ethically, prosecutors are only supposed to proceed on cases where they believe the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s clear Carisi wasn’t even sure here and decided to pawn that question off on the jury.  And even though stat rape is a strict liability offense, involuntary intoxication (which is what happened to the woman), is still a defense to a strict liability crime. If both parties are incapable of consenting, how do they choose who the criminal is? Are they going to prosecute the kid next for taking advantage of an intoxicated person? As much as I liked that they tried to present a unique issue, it was done so messily. 
And if the genders were switched, I’d feel the same way. And someone needs to fire that bartender for failing to do the minimal act of asking his customers for ID. 

[preeya]

  On 3/15/2025 at 12:46 PM, marny said:

And someone needs to fire that bartender for failing to do the minimal act of asking his customers for ID. 

Expand  

ITA, but in fairness to the bartender, the show cast a 25-year-old actor to play a 16-year-old kid. That's stretching the boundaries of realism much too much.

[txhorns79]

It was an interesting episode.  I did kind of wonder why they had the person really pushing this be a second stepmother who just had married the kid's dad the night of the statutory rape.  To me it said something to me that she was much more passionate about this than the kid's father.  It was like she was almost overcompensating for her tenuous relationship to the kid by trying to force this forward to show that she cared.  

  On 3/15/2025 at 2:11 PM, preeya said:

That's stretching the boundaries of realism much too much.

Expand  

I didn't have an issue with the casting.  The actor plausibly looked high school age to me. 

 

[pezgirl7]

  On 3/15/2025 at 12:46 PM, marny said:

There was one line that made me so angry. During the investigation, Bruno said something about the 16-year old like, “He doesn’t think he’s a victim.” And Olivia responds, “Well he’s about to learn he is.”

Expand  

The thing I find odd about statutory R cases is that even if the underaged person gave their consent, the law nullifies their consent and makes them a victim. There are so many shades of gray, and obviously each case is unique. I don’t think this case should have been prosecuted because of various factors, so I’m glad it ended in a mistrial. But I can’t help but think that the teenager might have been affected more than he thought and could have some trauma in the future. Bruno’s comments made it seem like he didn’t see himself as a victim when he was 15 but now he does. I would like to learn more about it affected him. 

[wknt3]

  On 3/14/2025 at 2:16 AM, MediaZone4K said:

Granted, what made the episode and the woman's defense weaker was the ambiguity of the boy's appearance due to his soft facial features. He was very clearly someone who you should ask for ID because their age is a gamble.

The woman's defense of not asking for ID because the boy looked mature would've been stronger with a male actor who had more mature features.

Expand  

 

  On 3/15/2025 at 2:11 PM, preeya said:

ITA, but in fairness to the bartender, the show cast a 25-year-old actor to play a 16-year-old kid. That's stretching the boundaries of realism much too much.

Expand  

 

  On 3/15/2025 at 9:42 PM, txhorns79 said:

I didn't have an issue with the casting.  The actor plausibly looked high school age to me.

Expand  

I actually thought the casting was very good. As originally mentioned, his features do mean he can play younger. And the way the shot and lit the scenes he looked early 20s in the opener and younger in some of the later scenes. I was unspoiled having the previews cut off last episode (unless they didn't air) and from the episode description was thinking the husband had drugged her and they would end up in some sort of rape by proxy case with Liv pushing Carisi to prosecute both men for rape because they are men and no matter what the law says and jurors think it is always Rape 1...

[slowpoked]

I like this episode. The law is clear as day that anyone under the age of consent cannot consent, but this is probably an example of where even if the law is crystal clear, you cannot ignore the other facts of the case.

Carisi brought up the fact that what if the roles were reversed. What if it was a horny 16 yr old girl who wanted to sleep w/ her teacher and proceeded to drug him, and the teacher was blacked out and truly incapacitated, and the girl rode him while he was passed out on the bed? And because the girl wanted to sleep w/ her teacher, didn’t see herself as a victim, also didn’t report it until her parents found out another way? It is highly possible it could also end up in a mistrial.

The unspoken fact on this case, even on a role reversal, is just the undeniable fact that men and women are just not equal in physical strength. That’s why if the roles were reversed, it’s still possible the older man will be convicted. On last night’s case, even if they had a 12 year gap between them, and even if Ryan was technically a kid, no one would question that he is still the physically stronger person over the older female teacher. That if he actually took her by force, instead of drugs, he would be able to overpower her. A 16 yr old horny high school girl wouldn’t be able to do that over her 28 yr old teacher she’s crushing on.

Edited March 16 by slowpoked

[Wizardpatch]

I really don't see how anyone can consider the boy as the victim. He initiated talking to her, initiated bringing her to the secluded pool area etc. If Olivia had seen what the audience did, even she would admit no crime occurred.

The woman looked disgusted by her husband even before he started drinking, like she wished he was better looking and not as childish. She drank the spiked drink knowing it was alcohol of some kind.

Edited March 16 by Wizardpatch

[MediaZone4K]

  On 3/15/2025 at 12:46 PM, marny said:

There was one line that made me so angry. During the investigation, Bruno said something about the 16-year old like, “He doesn’t think he’s a victim.” And Olivia responds, “Well he’s about to learn he is.” Yes, definitely make him feel victimized about something that he’s emotionally ok with. Like, I get that he’s technically too young to consent and there’s some question as to who initiated what, but please don’t force him into trauma if he isnt already there. 
I feel like this case shouldn’t have been prosecuted, honestly. Ethically, prosecutors are only supposed to proceed on cases where they believe the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s clear Carisi wasn’t even sure here and decided to pawn that question off on the jury.  And even though stat rape is a strict liability offense, involuntary intoxication (which is what happened to the woman), is still a defense to a strict liability crime. If both parties are incapable of consenting, how do they choose who the criminal is? Are they going to prosecute the kid next for taking advantage of an intoxicated person? As much as I liked that they tried to present a unique issue, it was done so messily. 
And if the genders were switched, I’d feel the same way. And someone needs to fire that bartender for failing to do the minimal act of asking his customers for ID. 

Expand  

  On 3/16/2025 at 6:27 PM, Wizardpatch said:

I really don't see how anyone can consider the boy as the victim. He initiated talking to her, initiated bringing her to the secluded pool area etc. If Olivia had seen what the audience did, even she would admit no crime occurred.

The woman looked disgusted by her husband even before he started drinking, like she wished he was better looking and not as childish. She drank the spiked drink knowing it was alcohol of some kind.

Expand  

Exactly, the boy is not a victim...he's the perpetrator who should face charges.

16 years old is not as smart as you will ever be, but evidence showed the teen was smart enough to seek out an older woman, lie about his age, and have sex with a woman he knew was incapacitated.

The only thing the woman did wrong in this scenario was not confirm the boy's age before flirting with him.

Under 18 or under 26 (the age of full brain development ) doesn't mean someone can't fathom right versus wrong on certain issues.

Edited March 16 by MediaZone4K

[faithie]

As another poster mentioned, having brand-new stepmom so heavily invested in this case rang a false note

So an adult male took a picture of two strangers embracing in a pool and sent it to his girlfriend? Who writes these scripts.

Bruno carries around a deep dark secret for 25 years and of course he confides in Olivia the Victim Whisperer.  The entire conversation was highly unrealistic.

[The Wild Sow]

  On 3/17/2025 at 2:00 AM, faithie said:

As another poster mentioned, having brand-new stepmom so heavily invested in this case rang a false note

Expand  

I was kind of hoping the dad would go off on her, really.

"You just had to drag him down to the police station, didn't you?!"

[tennisgurl]

A decently interesting case, I am not at all surprised that the jury ended up deadlocked. This was kind of a he said/she said case, but without a real obvious bad guy even when we get all of the information. I think there was a lack of maliciousness here that makes the case messy, both the teenager and the teacher made a lot of bad choices but its hard to call either one of them someone who was looking to take advantage of someone. I wouldn't say that this was a great episode, it sort of lacked an emotional punch or any big twists to make things memorable, but it did at least add some interesting greyness to a typical story and I like that we were left unsure where we go from there in a case with no easy answers. 

The bit of backstory with Bruno was interesting, too bad that we didn't get much time to really explore it. The whole "I didn't know I was a victim until much later" mindset is something that I would be interested in digging into more. 

This is another one of those cases where it baffles me that Olivia, the squads captain, is the one taking the lead. There is micromanaging, and there is Olivia. 

I kept waiting for some twist with the new step-mom leading the charge in the statutory rape case, it seems like Ryan had zero interest in pursuing it and his dad seemed checked out at best, I kept waiting to find out that that she had let him use a fake ID or given him the molli because she wanted to bond with him as a "cool" mom and felt guilty, but I guess she was just trying to overcompensate for being the second new stepmom to force a bond. 

I think we need to look more into that weird cousin who took a picture of random people fucking in a pool and texting it to his girlfriend. Didn't the episode start with someone taking pictures in bathrooms?!

I thought right away that the teenager looked super young, my first thought was that he was in his teens, which is hilarious considering how many actors they hire on this show to play teens who look like they're in their 30s. I wouldn't exactly consider being at a hotel bar with a drink to be proof of age, a lot of hotel bars are a bit loosy goosy with checking IDs.

It felt like the opener was messing with us, getting us to guess what the crime would be. Drunk husband assaults wife? Woman gets raped at bar? Woman gets drugged and isn't sure if it was her husband or a stranger who attacked her?

Edited March 17 by tennisgurl