Approach The Bench: Law & Order General Discussion Thread

[wknt3]

(Transferring from the Season 14 thread)

On 4/26/2018 at 4:42 AM, MissBluxom said:

Dick Wolf must be an awesome talent. He developed so many excellent TV shows.  Not only all the Law & Order shows. But also Chicago PD, Chicago Fire, Chicago Med, Chicago Justice ... etc.

How can any one person have developed all these leading shows?

 

On 4/27/2018 at 1:19 AM, WendyCR72 said:

New York Undercover, which was on in the mid '90s on Fox, was also his.

But, like any honcho, he had failures: L.A. Dragnet in the early 2000s (with Ed O'Neill as Joe Friday) and Law & Order: Trial By Jury (one season with Bebe Neuwirth as the ADA Tracy Kibre) and Law & Order: Los Angeles (Hot Damned Mess!).

But, yeah, when you consider two L&O shows made it to 20 or near it and one made it 10 seasons? Pretty good! Add in the international adaptions for the Mothership and Criminal Intent (and I wouldn't doubt there are some SVU adaptions floating around), and Wolf and his kin are set for three lifetimes. (I think he may have been a writer for Hill Street Blues, but I'm not 100% sure there.)

I think Shonda Rhimes is the female counterpart to Wolf, even if her shows don't grab me.

Dick Wolf did write on Hill Street Blues. It's where he met Tom Fontanna (who was working on St. Elsewhere at the same studio) which gave us the wonderful HLOTS crossovers. He also wrote for Miami Vice before the launch of the mothership. And if we're talking about his high profile failures you forgot Conviction (which is pretty forgettable, but relevant here as it is responsible Milena Govich in S17 so it's kind of a double fail) and Deadline with Oliver Platt. Without taking anything away from Dick Wolf I don't think his success is necessarily unique. When you have a hit as huge as Law & Order it buys you a lot of goodwill in the industry and your future ideas have a much better chance of making it on the air. There are lots of prolific creator-producers in the history of television like Wolf and Rhimes. Donald P. Bellisario (Magnum P.I., Airwolf, JAG, NCIS), Stephen J, Cannell (The Rockford Files, The A-Team, The Greatest American Hero, 21 Jump Street), and David E. Kelley (Chicago Hope, The Practice, Ally McBeal, Boston Public) come to mind. What I think is special about Wolf and Rhimes is being both prolific and the quality of their best work and for doing it in drama. For some reason it just seems much less common than in comedy where you have creators like Greg Daniels,  Norman Lear, or James L. Brooks who have multiple series that are leading shows on both levels.

Edited April 29, 2018 by wknt3
accidentally deleted stuff when posting

[Xeliou66]

Watching season 12 on WE tonight, it’s striking the difference between the first and second half. The second half could drag at times with both Serena and Nora, 2 soft bleeding heart types that lacked personality, both of the at once brought down the second half. On the other hand, the first half of the episodes are awesome, Briscoe and Green are great, one of the best detective pairings in TV history and I can watch their episodes repeatedly. 

The Fire This Time was on, one of my favorite season 12 episodes, strong investigation and then legal stuff and a compelling case. Nora really pissed me off in that one though with her extremely sympathetic approach to the defendants, they killed a woman in an arson, they didn’t deserve much sympathy even if they were fighting for a noble cause, Nora acted like it wasn’t a big deal and they deserved a slap on the wrist, I was glad McCoy went after them for serious charges. That’s why Nora was such a weak DA, she was incredibly soft and was an ideologue who seemed more interested in spewing philosophy than in making decisions. Another thing I liked about the episode was how the situation with the website operator Roche ended, I liked how he didn’t shut down his sight and how McCoy didn’t stretch the law to prosecute him, he had done nothing illegal, and I liked the discussion between McCoy and Roche at the end of the episode, both made good points IMO. And of course, all Briscoe and Green investigations are entertaining. Arguably the best episode of Season 12 IMO. 

[andromeda331]

21 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

Watching season 12 on WE tonight, it’s striking the difference between the first and second half. The second half could drag at times with both Serena and Nora, 2 soft bleeding heart types that lacked personality, both of the at once brought down the second half. On the other hand, the first half of the episodes are awesome, Briscoe and Green are great, one of the best detective pairings in TV history and I can watch their episodes repeatedly. 

The Fire This Time was on, one of my favorite season 12 episodes, strong investigation and then legal stuff and a compelling case. Nora really pissed me off in that one though with her extremely sympathetic approach to the defendants, they killed a woman in an arson, they didn’t deserve much sympathy even if they were fighting for a noble cause, Nora acted like it wasn’t a big deal and they deserved a slap on the wrist, I was glad McCoy went after them for serious charges. That’s why Nora was such a weak DA, she was incredibly soft and was an ideologue who seemed more interested in spewing philosophy than in making decisions. Another thing I liked about the episode was how the situation with the website operator Roche ended, I liked how he didn’t shut down his sight and how McCoy didn’t stretch the law to prosecute him, he had done nothing illegal, and I liked the discussion between McCoy and Roche at the end of the episode, both made good points IMO. And of course, all Briscoe and Green investigations are entertaining. Arguably the best episode of Season 12 IMO. 

She really did and she always seemed shocked when McCoy went after defendants for more serious charges. She never really put the horror or shock at what the defendant or defendants did. She always seemed more shocked at them being locked up for years. But never really puts it at the crime commented or the victims. She is the District Attorney she should know what the charges are. What did she really think her job was or how it was going to be? That she could put her philosophy into action? Her ideals? And what? Less charges for those who committed the crime? I really don't understand what she wanted or was expected. Criminals to reform? To magically be fixed? Some committed some really horrible acts. What about their victims? Now had they gone the route of someone like Nora with those ideals and philosophies having to do her job as someone who has to charge someone harshly or like the one with Chinese delivery man having to decide to use the death penalty that would have been more interesting. Its really easy to have those ideas when your not knee deep in cases where people did horrible things to other people and often they don't have a good reason for it.  Or like the one with the arson where you might have a lot of sympathy or noble cause but someone was still murdered.  That would have been interesting.  But that's never really what Nora does.  

[merylinkid]

It's all nice to have the philosophy that the criminal justice system should be about reform not punishment.   Until you meet the family of the woman burned to death in the arson for the "noble cause."   Her struggling to reconcile her views on what the criminal justice system should be -- and that is a legitimate debate -- versus justice for the victims would have been great tv.   Instead we get Nora waxing on and on with her ivory tower speeches.

Although to be fair, Jack had his moments too.   Anything from the 60's was "you just had to understand it was a different time."   Until the whole peace and love thing meets a dead cop's widow.   

Serena just had no business being a DA.   She was way to defense oriented.   On the other hand, Ms. Texas was way too far the other way.   Wolf had a really hard time developing female characters.   Except Van Buren.   

[wknt3]

11 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Serena just had no business being a DA.   She was way to defense oriented.   On the other hand, Ms. Texas was way too far the other way.   Wolf had a really hard time developing female characters.   Except Van Buren.   

And Kincaid. And Ross. Heck if we are going to give him grief for characters who came in after he had stopped running things himself we probably should note Rubirosa who I have argued before was the catalyst for the series' rebirth in in its last years.

Edited May 9, 2018 by wknt3
autocorrect fail

[andromeda331]

8 hours ago, merylinkid said:

It's all nice to have the philosophy that the criminal justice system should be about reform not punishment.   Until you meet the family of the woman burned to death in the arson for the "noble cause."   Her struggling to reconcile her views on what the criminal justice system should be -- and that is a legitimate debate -- versus justice for the victims would have been great tv.   Instead we get Nora waxing on and on with her ivory tower speeches.

Although to be fair, Jack had his moments too.   Anything from the 60's was "you just had to understand it was a different time."   Until the whole peace and love thing meets a dead cop's widow.   

Serena just had no business being a DA.   She was way to defense oriented.   On the other hand, Ms. Texas was way too far the other way.   Wolf had a really hard time developing female characters.   Except Van Buren.   

It would have been really interesting had they went that way with Nora. But that's a good point about female characters. We had that stupid judge and Olivet all concerned about ruining the life of that girl who already murdered someone. Zero consideration to the murder victim or his family. They wanted her free to go ignoring or simply not caring about the safety of others. Nora really wasn't that different. Or was Serena. Shocked at the charges for the murderers? Did Nora ever have to talk to the families of the victims? The family who's woman was burned to death? Even in her short time as DA there were a lot of shocking crimes.  Abby was very far the other way but I did like that she would say something when Nora made those remarks. I know Jack did too. But It was better then Serena who agreed completely with Nora and often seemed just as confused as Nora that Jack was charging the defendants. What did they think the DA's office was? Its their job to charge people with crimes they committed. I'll never let Serena's completely stupid remark about the parents who let their older son be molested to get money for their sick younger son to either.   

Edited May 9, 2018 by andromeda331

[Xeliou66]

The only time that I found Nora interesting was in Teenage Wasteland, when she had to make the choice to seek the death penalty against the killer of the restaurant owner despite her personal opposition because of his age. That was an interesting storyline for her because she had to make a decision that went against her personal views and she was conflicted about, but she had to be decisive. Usually though, she just spouted her philosophies about how criminals were being punished too harshly while doing absolutely nothing, not providing advice or giving orders, just whining and spouting her bleeding heart views. 

She really irritated me in The Fire This Time when she basically ignored the fact that the arsonists killed a woman, and acted like McCoy was only going after them for murder 2 to send a message, I was very happy when McCoy said he was mainly doing it for punishment and not deterrence but Nora still didn’t get the picture, she just kept whining about it. 

Her and Serena at the same time was just hard to stomach, neither of them should’ve been DA’s, they were both far too soft. 

I do think most of the female characters were done well, the ones that weren’t were Beauty Queen Detective who was a joke, Nora, Serena, and Borgia, who was just far too bland. Van Buren was awesome, and Rubirosa, Kincaid, Ross and even Carmichael were good, I did think Carmichael was over the top harsh with the defendants and I disliked her politics but she had personality and was interesting. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

16 hours ago, merylinkid said:

It's all nice to have the philosophy that the criminal justice system should be about reform not punishment.   Until you meet the family of the woman burned to death in the arson for the "noble cause."   Her struggling to reconcile her views on what the criminal justice system should be -- and that is a legitimate debate -- versus justice for the victims would have been great tv.   Instead we get Nora waxing on and on with her ivory tower speeches.

Although to be fair, Jack had his moments too.   Anything from the 60's was "you just had to understand it was a different time."   Until the whole peace and love thing meets a dead cop's widow.   

Serena just had no business being a DA.   She was way to defense oriented.   On the other hand, Ms. Texas was way too far the other way.   Wolf had a really hard time developing female characters.   Except Van Buren.   

Well...

As a fan of Ms. Texas, I think it's worth noting that relatively few of the defendants had 'noble causes' as reasons for doing the things they did. Mother's Milk, Monster, and Slave, just to name a few, had people doing things out of stupidity, weakness or just being plain evil, and there's little room for reform there, IMO. As an academic, since I think Nora was a professor of something or other before she was appointed to her office, she likely had little practical experience in dealing with criminals, and so her "Oh, my goodness!" outlook, while very annoying, particularly with Serena acting as her backup, was realistic.

[merylinkid]

12 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Well...

As a fan of Ms. Texas, I think it's worth noting that relatively few of the defendants had 'noble causes' as reasons for doing the things they did. Mother's Milk, Monster, and Slave, just to name a few, had people doing things out of stupidity, weakness or just being plain evil, and there's little room for reform there, IMO. As an academic, since I think Nora was a professor of something or other before she was appointed to her office, she likely had little practical experience in dealing with criminals, and so her "Oh, my goodness!" outlook, while very annoying, particularly with Serena acting as her backup, was realistic.

My problem with Miss Texas (aka Abby Carmichael) was she was just as one note as Nora and Serena.   She was just one note the OTHER way.   Lock them up and throw away the key.   Bad people do bad things.     Most DAs are probably somewhere in the middle.    McCoy was willing to consider the circumstances of WHY the crime was committed while still being compassionate about the victims.   Nora and Serena just bled everywhere while Abby railed.    Again, now well rounded developed characters to me. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

16 hours ago, merylinkid said:

My problem with Miss Texas (aka Abby Carmichael) was she was just as one note as Nora and Serena.   She was just one note the OTHER way.   Lock them up and throw away the key.   Bad people do bad things.     Most DAs are probably somewhere in the middle.    McCoy was willing to consider the circumstances of WHY the crime was committed while still being compassionate about the victims.   Nora and Serena just bled everywhere while Abby railed.    Again, now well rounded developed characters to me. 

"Four children are dead, Nora, we can't just send him to bed without any dinner!" "Be gentle, Mike, you don't want to break the little creep's trigger finger."

Alternately, I think its possible to understand that there might be reasons without empathizing with the criminals. Many real life school shooters also cite being bullied and picked on as why they  got a gun to help them solve the problem, like in School Daze, but while you can feel sorry for them and regret that it came to however many deaths, the first instinct should not be to put them first. That's why Killerz is such a horrifying episode, that the defense's side was pretty much "We have to help this girl and fix her!" even though she wasn't even ten years old and had already bashed some poor little boy's head in for no reason other than she was pissed off all the time.

[Xeliou66]

I only liked Abby better than Nora and Serena because she had personality, Nora and Serena were beyond dull. But yeah Abby was overly harsh, and she pissed me off the one time she wasn’t harsh was on the cop who shot the protestor who was actually an undercover cop in the 60’s, and that showed how Abby had very authoritarian views, I was glad McCoy and Schiff went after the guy and were pissed about what happened.

[andromeda331]

11 hours ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

"Four children are dead, Nora, we can't just send him to bed without any dinner!" "Be gentle, Mike, you don't want to break the little creep's trigger finger."

Alternately, I think its possible to understand that there might be reasons without empathizing with the criminals. Many real life school shooters also cite being bullied and picked on as why they  got a gun to help them solve the problem, like in School Daze, but while you can feel sorry for them and regret that it came to however many deaths, the first instinct should not be to put them first. That's why Killerz is such a horrifying episode, that the defense's side was pretty much "We have to help this girl and fix her!" even though she wasn't even ten years old and had already bashed some poor little boy's head in for no reason other than she was pissed off all the time.

The school shooting drives me crazy. I do love that they kept reminding Nora how many kids are dead. But it and Killerz have the same problem. Two kids who commit horrible crimes. One was a ten year old who bashed in a boy's head and the other shot up a school. All worried about these two kids who committed horrible acts. But the same ones waxing poetry and being all worried about those two kids but did not ever come up with a real solution. The girl's mother supposedly has to do weekly interviews with the judge or social services or something. Big deal. There was nothing to prevent the girl from killing again. Nothing. Sent home to live with her mother who clearly already proved she couldn't handle her daughter. The School shooting boy, his rich parents wanted to sent him for treatment. How long? What happened if he quit? For all the bleeding hearts that Serena, Nora and Olivet did they never ever come up with a solution. All they do is get mad at Jack for filing charges and following the law. Maybe jail isn't the best place for either kid. But what else is there? No one is offering any real solutions. And how far do you go to "help" the person who committed the crime? What about the victims? Four dead kids? A dead boy? What do they want to let them off the hook? What does that teach them? The girl got off completely for murdering someone.  There is no way that girl isn't going to murder again. 

[merylinkid]

9 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

But yeah Abby was overly harsh, and she pissed me off the one time she wasn’t harsh was on the cop who shot the protestor who was actually an undercover cop in the 60’s, and that showed how Abby had very authoritarian views

Well she did get hit with reality once.    The Alzheimer guy who killed his wife.   She got to see what prison is like for someone with alzheimer's.   It's not that she didn't want him punished but one of the circles of Hell was not the right thing.   

[Spartan Girl]

I love Abby though I have to agree that her authoritarian views were a big problem.  But unlike Serena and Nora, most of the time she had no issues putting the victims first.  She wasn't interested in coddling the criminals.

7 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

The School shooting boy, his rich parents wanted to sent him for treatment. How long? What happened if he quit? For all the bleeding hearts that Serena, Nora and Olivet did they never ever come up with a solution.

Not to mention the rich boy's parents knew their son had violent issues -- he broke his sister's arm -- and yet they had done nothing concrete to solve the problem up til that point.  

[Xeliou66]

Abby was way more suited to be a DA than Serena or Nora, but yeah she had some very authoritarian views that were seen a few times, notably in Ramparts, where she acted like protestors deserved to be shot basically, I loved when McCoy berated her for it. 

I disagreed with Abby’s sympathy in the case of the Alzheimer’s patient who killed his wife as well, the killer knew exactly what he was doing when he did it and felt no remorse, he was a controlling asshole. Yeah a prison ward would be very cruel to him but he didn’t deserve a slap on the wrist either, I was glad McCoy had him confined to a halfway house instead of a fancy facility.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Xeliou66

[bubbls]

Does anyone remember an episode that took place in a high school? It’s not School Daze. The kid they were investigating was picked on. I think his nickname was Freak. I’m sure it was an early nineties episode. 

[Xeliou66]

4 minutes ago, bubbls said:

Does anyone remember an episode that took place in a high school? It’s not School Daze. The kid they were investigating was picked on. I think his nickname was Freak. I’m sure it was an early nineties episode. 

Perhaps Loco Parentis from season 10, where the macho asshole dad gave his bully son weapons and practically urged him to bully other kids and he wound up killing another teenager and Schiff had them both charged with murder? I can’t think of any early season episodes that fit that description exactly, could you give more detail?

[bubbls]

4 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

Perhaps Loco Parentis from season 10, where the macho asshole dad gave his bully son weapons and practically urged him to bully other kids and he wound up killing another teenager and Schiff had them both charged with murder? I can’t think of any early season episodes that fit that description exactly, could you give more detail?

Thanks, but that’s not it. Those are the only details I remember. Maybe it wasn’t L&O, but I could’ve sworn it was. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

There was “Wannabe?” I think it was? In season five- where the rich kid shot another rich kid who bullied him, and it was the poor kid who was on scholarship at the same school, who took the rap?

Edited May 20, 2018 by GHScorpiosRule

[bubbls]

7 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

There was “Wannabe?” I think it was? In season five- where the rich kid shot another rich kid who bullied him, and it was the poor kid who was on scholarship at the same school, who took the rap?

Hmmm, that might be it. I’ll watch it. Thanks!

[Xeliou66]

I’m glad to see season 1 episodes back on on WE today, it’s been a long time since the early seasons were on. 

Life Choice is one of my favorite early season episodes, very interesting and complex storyline although Greevey always pisses me off with his obnoxious anti choice rants. I love Schiff’s line about how he’s getting angry that 3 men are sitting and talking about what rights a woman has to her own body, and I like a lot of the dialogue between the various characters about the abortion issue, and it was very satisfying to see Stone shut that bitch Schwimmer up with his question about the victims unborn child. 

I also like The Secret Sharers a lot, the episode where the rapist drug dealer gets shot by his victims boyfriend, and the lawyer flies in from Texas to defend him, it was funny how the trial judge kept getting angry at the lawyers showboating. I also love Schiff’s line in that episode “A girl raped, her sister on trial, Shambala Green with a jury, she’ll milk em til they moo!” 

The early seasons aren’t played often enough. 

[shapeshifter]

41 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

I also love Schiff’s line in that episode “A girl raped, her sister on trial, Shambala Green with a jury, she’ll milk em til they moo!” 

Hah! A good one for the quotes thread!

42 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

The early seasons aren’t played often enough

True. I think I heard that there's some legal reason, but I can't recall what exactly.

[Maherjunkie]

Probably a rights issue.

[Xeliou66]

ION has started showing L&O again!!!! Awesome!

Darwinian was on tonight, I love that episode. Unique in that it goes from the police to the legal stuff twice because of the reinvestigation of the murder after it was revealed the victim was dying before he was hit by the car. The trial was very interesting and I thought both McCoy and the defense lawyer made strong arguments over the interesting and difficult issue of the plight of the homeless and I thought McCoy’s closing argument about how if the jury acquitted they would be denying justice to the homeless was particularly strong. Also I love the line from the judge after the defense lawyer compares the witness to a dog : “Look behind you Ms Gardner. There’s the line”.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Xeliou66

[GHScorpiosRule]

How's this for Life Imitating Art? I can't recall which season it was that addressed/used playing video games as an addiction (which I think was the defense used to explain murder). Just last week I heard on the radio how addiction to video games/gaming, etc., is now a mental illness. Just as any other addiction/illness.

I'm not sure how I feel about that.

[Xeliou66]

Season 16 on on ION all day today, I’m curious, what’s everyone’s opinion of this season? It’s somewhat underrated IMO, I like the Fontana/Green pairing, I’m not the biggest fan of the legal half, Borgia was rather bland and preachy as well at times, and Branch, well he had good and bad moments, I did like how he added personality to the DA’s scenes. The stories weren’t the best, but they were still solid and there were plenty of good episodes. 

I saw America Inc, where it’s always very satisfying to see McCoy rip into Melnick for using her clients for a political agenda, I always hated her. 

I really like the episode Thinking Makes It So, the legal stuff is awesome with the always entertaining Dworkin, some of his lines make me laugh out loud everytime, and very interesting debate about use of excessive force in extreme circumstances, I strongly oppose torture and I support strong protections for civil liberties and constitutional rights, it I understood where Fontana was coming from trying desperately to save an innocent child whom he didn’t know was safe or not, and I believe Lowell deserved to be convicted as he was blatantly guilty of robbery and kidnapping and I thought the jury got the right verdict. Very interesting and thought provoking episode. 

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, Xeliou66 said:

Season 16 on on ION all day today, I’m curious, what’s everyone’s opinion of this season? It’s somewhat underrated IMO, I like the Fontana/Green pairing, I’m not the biggest fan of the legal half, Borgia was rather bland and preachy as well at times, and Branch, well he had good and bad moments, I did like how he added personality to the DA’s scenes. The stories weren’t the best, but they were still solid and there were plenty of good episodes. 

I saw America Inc, where it’s always very satisfying to see McCoy rip into Melnick for using her clients for a political agenda, I always hated her. 

I really like the episode Thinking Makes It So, the legal stuff is awesome with the always entertaining Dworkin, some of his lines make me laugh out loud everytime, and very interesting debate about use of excessive force in extreme circumstances, I strongly oppose torture and I support strong protections for civil liberties and constitutional rights, it I understood where Fontana was coming from trying desperately to save an innocent child whom he didn’t know was safe or not, and I believe Lowell deserved to be convicted as he was blatantly guilty of robbery and kidnapping and I thought the jury got the right verdict. Very interesting and thought provoking episode. 

McCoy ripping into Melnick is always going to be the best part of Season 16 for me and makes the whole season worth it.  I do like Fontana and his pairing with Green. It couldn't have been easy to try and find someone to replace Lennie. 

I really like Thinking Makes It So because both sides have really good points. I like a lot of cases but ones like these are always my favorite. When you have a case where an innocent child is missing. You don't know if the kid is safe or not. If the kid is dead or alive. In situations like that time really does matter. And you have suspect who knows where the kid is. If you waste time with rights and lawyers, the kid could be dead. I see why Fontana did what he did. I can see why Dworkin clearly objected. Torture a suspect is wrong. But in situations like that one what do you?   

[merylinkid]

5 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

If you waste time with rights and lawyers, the kid could be dead. I see why Fontana did what he did. I can see why Dworkin clearly objected. Torture a suspect is wrong. But in situations like that one what do you?   

This is why this show was so great.   It got us to think about the really good questions.   Okay, kid's life is on the line -- so okay a little torture is okay.   I guess.   but where do you draw the line?   What is a "little" torture.   What if the kid had been dead all this time?   What if they had the wrong guy?   What if he was an accomplice and only MAYBE knew where the kid was?   What if it was a terrorist and holding him in Guantamo and waterboarding him was the only way to find out about the next terrorist attack?

Remember the episode where the taxi driver was missing and the accomplice wanted a deal?   McCoy wouldn't do it and everybody was excoriating him over it because "he could still be alive?"   That was a deal, not even over whether or not to torture someone.   McCoy held firm.    Is a grown man's life less important than that of a child?   He had a family.   Wasn't finding him still alive important?   Turns out the poor man had been dead from the get go. 

  The Constitutional rights are there to protect everybody all the time.   Not just the times it is convenient or we are not in a rush.    I get why Fontana did what he did.   But he actually could have blown the whole case -- and called any other case he touched into doubt over whether torture was used to get a confession.

[biakbiak]

I legit hate Fontona so much this is the only season I have not rewatched.

[Xeliou66]

Delving in to the many gray areas in morality and the justice system and society as a whole is a big part of what made L&O such a brilliant show, episodes like Thinking Makes It So are some of my favorites as well. Both sides made really good points, I understand why Fontana did what he did, and I understand the moral objections from McCoy, Borgia and Dworkin. I’m still not sure who was in the right, and that’s part of what made the episode so good, I loved McCoy and Dworkin’s discussions about the case. Dworkin is such an entertaining character, I’m really glad he’s back as a recurring character on SVU now. 

And yeah McCoy ripping into Melnick was awesome, I’m glad I’m not the only one who dislikes the self righteous and  hypocritical Melnick. 

[shapeshifter]

3 hours ago, biakbiak said:

I legit hate Fontona so much this is the only season I have not rewatched.

You hate Fontana because of the drowning torture to get information? Or because he's not Lennie? Or something else?

Edited June 28, 2018 by shapeshifter

[biakbiak]

I found him to be an obnoxious, smarmy, charmless over the top asshat and his occasional Stableresque unconstitutional behavior didn’t help. 

Edited June 28, 2018 by biakbiak

[Xeliou66]

Fontana was unlikable at times, he was arrogant and smug and I didn’t like the way he would behave in unconstitutional ways and seemed to have little regard for people’s rights, but he was entertaining and I liked how he wasn’t Briscoe 2.0, Briscoe was very difficult to replace and it wouldn’t have worked making Fontana just like him. I’m sort of glad Fontana didn’t stick around for too long as his unconstitutional and morally dubious behavior would’ve gotten tiresome, but he was entertaining while he was on.

[shapeshifter]

5 hours ago, biakbiak said:

I found him to be an obnoxious, smarmy, charmless over the top asshat and his occasional Stableresque unconstitutional behavior didn’t help. 

 

5 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Fontana was unlikable at times, he was arrogant and smug and I didn’t like the way he would behave in unconstitutional ways and seemed to have little regard for people’s rights, but he was entertaining and I liked how he wasn’t Briscoe 2.0, Briscoe was very difficult to replace and it wouldn’t have worked making Fontana just like him. I’m sort of glad Fontana didn’t stick around for too long as his unconstitutional and morally dubious behavior would’ve gotten tiresome, but he was entertaining while he was on.

The actor did a good job of selling the role, which probably made viewers dislike him more than if he seemed to just be acting obnoxious. I found him entertaining, but his character flaws don't happen to be the same as my ex's.

[stonehaven]

I will say that seeing a few Fontana episodes, he wasn't as bad as I recalled...I , too, watched ION yesterday..and got really sucked into a few episodes..including "Thinking Makes it So".

[biakbiak]

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

 

The actor did a good job of selling the role, which probably made viewers dislike him more than if he seemed to just be acting obnoxious. I found him entertaining, but his character flaws don't happen to be the same as my ex's.

And no offense to the dead but I found his acting the same tired shit that Farina always did in his performances. 

[natalie wood]

I really liked Fontana. He was abrasive but he did not suffer fools gladly. It was a challenge for any actor to follow Jerry/Lenny. I’d take him every.single.day and twice on Sunday over Cassady.?I’ve mentioned before that I love “Thinking Makes it So.” It was definitely a thought provoking episode. I feel like Logan did some questionable things, too, but I still loved him. 

15 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Remember the episode where the taxi driver was missing and the accomplice wanted a deal?   McCoy wouldn't do it and everybody was excoriating him over it because "he could still be alive?"   That was a deal, not even over whether or not to torture someone.   McCoy held firm.    Is a grown man's life less important than that of a child?   He had a family.   Wasn't finding him still alive important?   Turns out the poor man had been dead from the get go. 

But, McCoy was willing to make a deal for the little girl who was kidnapped. As a matter of fact he went against the expressed wishes of Branch. I can’t think of the name of the episode and I just watched it the other day. It’s the one where Branch talks to the judge and she sets aside the deal after the kidnapper tells them where the child is. So, depending on the situation deals were made. Branch stepped in on that case and that scum got exactly what he deserved. That bastard was going to get off scot free and McCoy was going to resign after making the deal. Pretty sure Branch tells Jack he’ll never be a DA in this episode. Anyone else remember?

I have to add that I’d take Fontana and his abrasive personality over Rey and his never ending sanctimony.

Edited June 29, 2018 by natalie wood

[Xeliou66]

I would also take Fontana over Beauty Queen or Curtis any day of the week. Logan was a hot head, but I didn’t find him as morally questionable as Fontana. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, Xeliou66 said:

I would also take Fontana over Beauty Queen or Curtis any day of the week. Logan was a hot head, but I didn’t find him as morally questionable as Fontana. 

Same here. And not for nothin' but in the early years, the cops knew better than to go past what was legal, because they knew if they did, then it could come back to bite them on the ass come court time.  The ONLY time Mike went over the edge was the way he got Max's killer to confess. But he was grieving, so I give him a pass on that. Plus, I don't think he would ever have killed him, because he wanted JUSTICE for Max. And when he was called out for anything he did, he admitted it.

[Xeliou66]

One episode that I absolutely hate Borgia in is In God We Trust, it really pissed me off how she was basically saying the hate murderer should get a free pass because he became a Christian after his crime. Seriously, fuck Borgia. Being religious shouldn’t affect punishment for a murder, the guy feeling remorse won’t bring his victim back, and people who are religious shouldn’t get special treatment just because they are religious, which is what Borgia was arguing, and I loved how McCoy called her out on that. A defendant’s religious beliefs should have no bearing on what sentence he gets, period, religion and the law shouldn’t be intertwined, as McCoy said in his final statement to the judge. Borgia’s arguments in this case were almost as bad as Serena defending the parents that sold their kid to a pedophile. 

[andromeda331]

8 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

One episode that I absolutely hate Borgia in is In God We Trust, it really pissed me off how she was basically saying the hate murderer should get a free pass because he became a Christian after his crime. Seriously, fuck Borgia. Being religious shouldn’t affect punishment for a murder, the guy feeling remorse won’t bring his victim back, and people who are religious shouldn’t get special treatment just because they are religious, which is what Borgia was arguing, and I loved how McCoy called her out on that. A defendant’s religious beliefs should have no bearing on what sentence he gets, period, religion and the law shouldn’t be intertwined, as McCoy said in his final statement to the judge. Borgia’s arguments in this case were almost as bad as Serena defending the parents that sold their kid to a pedophile. 

I agree it shouldn't have any bearing and really it doesn't matter. It shouldn't matter that he became a Christian or has remorse or turned his life around. I do like what McCoy said in the final statement too. Yes, he still has to face the courts and people first. He still has to be tried for the crime he committed and face the consequences of his actions. He doesn't get excused because he's a Christian. I also liked that his sister couldn't say she forgave him. Which it was really nice to hear and he really needed to hear it. You murdered her boyfriend. I hated Borgia in the episode too.   

[Xeliou66]

53 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

I agree it shouldn't have any bearing and really it doesn't matter. It shouldn't matter that he became a Christian or has remorse or turned his life around. I do like what McCoy said in the final statement too. Yes, he still has to face the courts and people first. He still has to be tried for the crime he committed and face the consequences of his actions. He doesn't get excused because he's a Christian. I also liked that his sister couldn't say she forgave him. Which it was really nice to hear and he really needed to hear it. You murdered her boyfriend. I hated Borgia in the episode too.   

Agreed. It doesn’t matter if the guy became religious after the murder, being religious doesn’t mean he should get a free pass, nor does him feeling remorse. I was really pissed at how Borgia was acting like the defendant’s religious beliefs entitled him to special treatment, I loved when McCoy called her out on that in Branch’s office, saying “And what if you don’t believe in Christ? Then what, you just have to serve your sentence?” Borgia was basically saying there should be a double standard based on if the defendant was a Christian or not, and that if you were a Christian you should get leniency. Borgia was always my least favorite ADA, she was incredibly bland plus extremely sanctimonious and self righteous, always on her moral high horse, and I really hated her in several episodes, but most notably in this one, like I said, her arguments were downright absurd and offensive, much like Serena’s arguments in defense of the scumbag parents who sold their kid to a pedophile in Smoke. 

[andromeda331]

4 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

Agreed. It doesn’t matter if the guy became religious after the murder, being religious doesn’t mean he should get a free pass, nor does him feeling remorse. I was really pissed at how Borgia was acting like the defendant’s religious beliefs entitled him to special treatment, I loved when McCoy called her out on that in Branch’s office, saying “And what if you don’t believe in Christ? Then what, you just have to serve your sentence?” Borgia was basically saying there should be a double standard based on if the defendant was a Christian or not, and that if you were a Christian you should get leniency. Borgia was always my least favorite ADA, she was incredibly bland plus extremely sanctimonious and self righteous, always on her moral high horse, and I really hated her in several episodes, but most notably in this one, like I said, her arguments were downright absurd and offensive, much like Serena’s arguments in defense of the scumbag parents who sold their kid to a pedophile in Smoke. 

Yeah, that's exactly what she was saying. I love that she got called out on it. But she was really unbelievable. And never really had a response to McCoy's remark. I refused to believe that God or Jesus want Christians to invoke them to get out of crime and avoid responsibility for what they did. If he was really sorry for what he did and trying to follow the Christian example. Then why didn't he confess a lot sooner? Isn't a big part of being a Christian you confess your sins and accept responsibility? I'm glad McCoy never backed down. She really was Serena but with religious beliefs for her reasons on defending defendants. There is no defending the parents in Smoke. They sold their kid. Her they had no other choice. Ah, yes they did! They had a choice not take money in exchanged for allowing their son to be assaulted. Any other parent would have called the police on the pedophile. Serena and Borgia were both the worse. Serena made tons of idiot arguments. 

[Spartan Girl]

16 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Yeah, that's exactly what she was saying. I love that she got called out on it. But she was really unbelievable. And never really had a response to McCoy's remark. I refused to believe that God or Jesus want Christians to invoke them to get out of crime and avoid responsibility for what they did. If he was really sorry for what he did and trying to follow the Christian example. Then why didn't he confess a lot sooner? Isn't a big part of being a Christian you confess your sins and accept responsibility? 

Damn straight it is. Unless you actually own up to what you did and accept the consequences, then you haven't fucking repented.

[Katy M]

On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 3:43 PM, Xeliou66 said:

One episode that I absolutely hate Borgia in is In God We Trust, it really pissed me off how she was basically saying the hate murderer should get a free pass because he became a Christian after his crime. Seriously, fuck Borgia. Being religious shouldn’t affect punishment for a murder, the guy feeling remorse won’t bring his victim back, and people who are religious shouldn’t get special treatment just because they are religious, which is what Borgia was arguing, and I loved how McCoy called her out on that. A defendant’s religious beliefs should have no bearing on what sentence he gets, period, religion and the law shouldn’t be intertwined, as McCoy said in his final statement to the judge. Borgia’s arguments in this case were almost as bad as Serena defending the parents that sold their kid to a pedophile. 

I completely agree.  I brought this up on another board a few years ago.  I was getting so mad watching it.  I am a Christian and I wanted to yell at the defendant on the TV, "This isn't right.  You're supposed to take responsibility.  God has forgiven you, but you still have the earthly consequences."  So, I was happy at the end, when he decided to do just that.  But, I was still upset with the lawyers who thought this made any sense.  And, of course, the defendant shouldn't have waited to be found out.  He should have gone and turned himself in the moment he repented.  Or, take a minimum amount of time to make whatever arrangements he needed to and then do it. There is a certain advantage to turning yourself in if the police don't even have a clue, I guess.

[Xeliou66]

Yeah the guy didn’t come forward and confess until the police were on to him and grilling his sister about it, only then did he confess. I liked how the sister didn’t forgive him or argue for him to go free and I thought it was a great move by McCoy to put her on the stand. I also liked how the victim’s father didn’t forgive the killer and said that he was sick of hearing sorry. Borgia really pissed me off in that one, she was blatantly saying a defendant’s religious beliefs should influence his sentence, that goes against the 1st Amendment and everything about the American justice system, where everyone is treated equally regardless of religion. Giving a defendant a pass because he was a born again Christian would be basically a government endorsement of Christianity and putting one religion ahead of all others, something which I thought should’ve been pointed out more, other than McCoy’s aforementioned line to Borgia in Branch’s office. This wasn’t the only time Borgia seemed to let her religious beliefs cloud her judgment, but it was the most egregious example.

[andromeda331]

On ‎7‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 4:57 PM, Spartan Girl said:

Damn straight it is. Unless you actually own up to what you did and accept the consequences, then you haven't fucking repented.

Exactly, unless you've done that you have not repented. 

On ‎7‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 2:17 PM, Katy M said:

I completely agree.  I brought this up on another board a few years ago.  I was getting so mad watching it.  I am a Christian and I wanted to yell at the defendant on the TV, "This isn't right.  You're supposed to take responsibility.  God has forgiven you, but you still have the earthly consequences."  So, I was happy at the end, when he decided to do just that.  But, I was still upset with the lawyers who thought this made any sense.  And, of course, the defendant shouldn't have waited to be found out.  He should have gone and turned himself in the moment he repented.  Or, take a minimum amount of time to make whatever arrangements he needed to and then do it. There is a certain advantage to turning yourself in if the police don't even have a clue, I guess.

 

1 hour ago, Xeliou66 said:

Borgia really pissed me off in that one, she was blatantly saying a defendant’s religious beliefs should influence his sentence, that goes against the 1st Amendment and everything about the American justice system, where everyone is treated equally regardless of religion. Giving a defendant a pass because he was a born again Christian would be basically a government endorsement of Christianity and putting one religion ahead of all others, something which I thought should’ve been pointed out more, other than McCoy’s aforementioned line to Borgia in Branch’s office. This wasn’t the only time Borgia seemed to let her religious beliefs cloud her judgment, but it was the most egregious example.

Nope, not until that moment and then he confesses.  Which doesn't make him any different then any other murderer who confesses when the pressures on them and/or family member. It also means his excuse about having repented and a born again Christian complete bullshit along with his defense. Confessing when the police are grilling you and your sister doesn't count as repenting. I love how Borgia skips over that one. Why did he wait until then if he's a good and repented Christian, Borgia? Why didn't he do it the moment he changed? All that happened was he behaved like a lot of other murderers once the pressure started he confessed. I must have forgotten the part where Jesus praised hiding from the law for decades and confessing just as your being questioned by the police.  But he's different and special because? I hate that he tries to claim he repented and was born again therefore shouldn't go to jail. Which is bull. To truly repent you have to accept responsibility for what you did. Which would be turning yourself in. Any real minister or reverend that he confessed too would have been have been telling him he would need to do that before his redemption could be considered complete assuming that ever happened.  He never turned himself in and only now after he confesses decides to use his faith to get out of being punished. I hate and also can't believe that Borgia buys completely into it and exactly says Christians should be treated differently. How was she not fired or reassigned after that? She tried to put one faith above another, one group above the law.  She clearly showed her judgement couldn't be trusted in the case. How many other cases has she tried that there was a Christian defendant? Did she treat them all differently?  She's all outraged at McCoy. Hey, Borgia, where's your outrage at a murder suspect clearly using his faith to get away with murder? I'm a Christian and that kind of stuff makes me mad. 
 

Quote

Yeah the guy didn’t come forward and confess until the police were on to him and grilling his sister about it, only then did he confess. I liked how the sister didn’t forgive him or argue for him to go free and I thought it was a great move by McCoy to put her on the stand. I also liked how the victim’s father didn’t forgive the killer and said that he was sick of hearing sorry.

 

I liked how the sister didn't forgive him either. I wondered what she'd say when McCoy asked her and I like that she didn't. Because good. She really shouldn't. Her brother murdered her boyfriend. That's not something you just get over or can let go. I wonder how she really felt about her brother's trial. He killed him and was trying to get out of being punished. I loved the victims father's too and what he said. It doesn't matter that your sorry, plus being sorry is hollow when your currently trying keep from going to jail for it. By claiming your a better person, you've been forgiven by Jesus (or so he claims). And because of that you shouldn't have to go to jail.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

You know, this is another reason why I ❤️❤️❤️Ben Stone so much. In “Life Choice,” that witch Rose Schwimmer said she didn’t believe in “Man’s Law” only in “God’s Law” and accused Stone of “working for Satan the Devil.” He turned it around on her and that scene is one of THE BEST scenes of the series and THE BEST in the episode: about if she believes all life is precious and she doesn’t care that she bombed the clinic, then according to her, and in “God’s eyes,” isn’t she guilty of murdering Mary’s unborn child? That shut the TWAT up but good. In other words, there was nuance. All people on the sides of this issue were heard from. There was no ANVIL being slammed on the viewers’ heads and it made you think.

[shapeshifter]

On July 12, 2018 at 12:21 AM, andromeda331 said:

Confessing when the police are grilling you and your sister doesn't count as repenting.

I haven't seen that episode in a while, but wasn't there an argument that the killer was living a life of service to others—sort of a works are more important than words philosophy? Anyway, I can't recall whether or not I thought that the viewers were supposed to root for the murderer, or if it was supposed to be left in a gray area.

[WendyCR72]

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

I haven't seen that episode in a while, but wasn't there an argument that the killer was living a life of service to others—sort of a works are more important than words philosophy? Anyway, I can't recall whether or not I thought that the viewers were supposed to root for the murderer, or if it was supposed to be left in a gray area.

As always, other parts of the franchise used this theme. The murderer in another case - of Eames' husband on CI - was not religious but a kid when he murdered. As a result, he became a doctor, saving lives.

I think the story on the Mothership can still be summed up by the words Eames said to that doctor: The good works both of these killers did after their crimes cannot make up for the one(s) they took away.

That said, at least the pontificating was a lot less since there was no bleeding heart like Borgia to go to bat for the murderer. I honestly still liked Borgia more than Southerlyn (not a high bar, I know), but even I asked myself more than once when watching this episode just why Borgia went on to be a prosecutor. She was often clearly too soft, like Nora and Serena before her, or too rigid, letting her moral beliefs, etc. rule/cloud her judgment. I do have some morbid fascination about how much behind the scenes may or may not have contributed to Borgia's characterization, in that Annie Parisse came and went so quickly, and her character was disposed of in such a violent manner. Maybe one had nothing to do with the other, but I'm just curious.

Then there was the other end of that pendulum: I liked Abbie Carmichael, but she could often be too inflexible and always be all "fry 'em all" even when a softer approach could work. The only time I recall her faltering was when the man with Alzheimer's killed his wife. But, by and large, the ADAs often represented a "type". But I admit, at least the show often made the cases compelling enough to muddy the waters of what justice merits in any given crime.

But I even recall Robinette questioning going after - was it the Bagman? - because he did good for Paul's community, etc. I guess the moral struggles just became more blatant/obvious as the show aged.