S18.E03: Impostor

[WendyCR72]

When a man uses a false identity to lure a vulnerable married woman to bed, Barba thinks the evidence amounts to rape.

[Spartan Girl]

Jesus, where do I even begin?

While it was interesting that the show finally addressed what I like to call the Revenge of the Nerds controversy of rape by deception, I wished they didn't have to execute it by desperate mothers sleeping with a guy they thought was a college official to get their kids into a pricey school. No question, the guy was a predator and a scumbag, but seriously?!

I mean, I felt bad for the victim, but I felt worse for her family. Especially at the end. Really, show, you had to have that poor kid off himself because of the shame?!

At least Carisi is acting more like his usual, lovable self.

[CleoCaesar]

If lying to women to sleep with them was a felony, the U.S. prison population would probably be triple what it is. That was some seriously eyeroll-worthy grandstanding by St. Benson. I'd say this was one of the more interesting episodes this season so far (well the other two were clunkers IMO) but still, it was just a little TOO agenda-driven for my taste.

[Sarcastica]

What the heck did I watch?

[yogi2014L]

My husband went on like a 5 minute rant about the entire premise of this episode LOL. I had to agree. The sex, was consensual regardless of who she thought he was. Sorry you didn't think to google this guy BEFORE you slept with him. This may be the first episode where I was fully on the side of the defense. 

I do think the guy is a big POS -but lying to get laid is hardly illegal. 

Additionally didn't the woman also kind of commit a crime? like sex in exchange for services? Prostitution?

The second "victim" said it best- we both hustled. 

And killing the kid at the end was totes unnecessary.

Edited October 6, 2016 by yogi2014L

[Laurie4H]

What isn't rape with Liv?

And on a shallow note.  that guy was supposed to be a good looking guy in his early 40's?  He looked closer to 50.                     

[RafaelBarbas]

Well, this episode was dumb, but at least we know Rollisi is endgame and we have hints of Barba doing interesting stuff soon, no?

[LittleIggy]

Any epi with that much Barba in it, I'll watch.

1 hour ago, Laurie4H said:

What isn't rape with Liv?

And on a shallow note.  that guy was supposed to be a good looking guy in his early 40's?  He looked closer to 50.                     

And he was no way good looking!

[ShortyMac]

1 hour ago, yogi2014L said:

My husband went on like a 5 minute rant about the entire premise of this episode LOL. I had to agree. The sex, was consensual regardless of who she thought he was. Sorry you didn't think to google this guy BEFORE you slept with him. This may be the first episode where I was fully on the side of the defense. 

I do think the guy is a big POS -but lying to get laid is hardly illegal. 

Additionally didn't the woman also kind of commit a crime? like sex in exchange for services? Prostitution?

The second "victim" said it best- we both hustled. 

And killing the kid at the end was totes unnecessary.

Agreed.

I also rolled my eyes at Olivia's "issue of the week" (it seems) with Noah. "Oh, noes! He won't get into the fancy preschool!" Don't really care.

I loved Fin, Rollins, and Carisi (always, really) this week.

[Muffyn]

19 minutes ago, ShortyMac said:

Agreed.

I also rolled my eyes at Olivia's "issue of the week" (it seems) with Noah. "Oh, noes! He won't get into the fancy preschool!" Don't really care.

I think we also learned that wealthy white kids have a much harder time getting into Hudson U.  Of course, Hudson is also known as Rape U. so it may be better for Noah to not get in to the fancy preschool.  It would only send him down a path to be rejected by Hudson.   (How did Stabler get his daughter into this elite school?)   

I found the school motto, "Omnes eorum violabuntur" (all will be raped).

[Monkeybball]

I can say nothing else right now but: UGH.

[Everleigh]

I can't believe they're suddenly trying to pass Hudson off as some elite college and not the cesspool of murder and rape we've known it as. And now all of a sudden Hudson's impossible to get into when 99% of SVU's college age victims and perps have attended Hudson. You would think all the rapes and murders would have hurt their admission rates. 

I thought the premise of the episode was interesting but New York does not have a rape by fraud law so it really did seem pointless for Barba to try to prosecute something that isn't a crime in his state. 

[minamurray78]

I hope the kid's family sues nypd, or at least Olivia for dragging them into this mess, and manipulating that woman into making all of this public, regardless of how her life and her family would be affected ( and she voiced her concerns to Olivia). But none of that mattered to Benson cause she had her agenda, and she used that woman  and hijacked a court because it was faster and flashier than changing legislation the usual way. Disgusting.

I'll confess, I completely failed to feel sorry for the mother anyway. She was not a "desperate mother who was vulnerable and open for someone to take advantadge of". Like if her son were sick and with no money, and she was conned into sleeping with a guy because he promised her a cure he couldn't actually procure. (which still sounds like a con not a rape but I don't know). She was an elitist and a snob, willing to pimp herself to get her kid into the top school no matter what, as if he didn't have good enough grades (and money) to attend any other great schools in the country, or even abroad. Right, she was terrified his life would suck like hers because she dropped out of college, even though she went on and married a rich guy. Please. These women complaining about all the mechanisms helping underpriviledged kids get into these schools (lol the second mother even admitted her daughter was smart but not that smart) so of course they go ahead and try to cheat to get their kids in anyway. The entitlement ugh.

[MaryHedwig]

She was an elitist and a snob, willing to pimp herself to get her kid into the top school no matter what,

But not smart enough to know that Hudson is known for its rapes and other sordid crimes. Obviously, she has not watch enough SVU reruns.

Edited October 10, 2016 by MaryHedwig

[wknt3]

The Good:
The guest stars.
Fin - "I pretended I was Melle Mel" LOL I wonder if Ice T helped them with the old school hip hop reference?
They seemed to be aware that they were pushing the envelope and they even allowed for some internal debate.
The chemistry between Rollins and Carisi. I still don't think it's a great idea to pursue a relationship, but I have to admit that the actors really do work well together.

The Bad:
More Noah drama (but offscreen! yay!) I would think given his history that if his only cognitive issue was being slightly behind in verbal skills that would be very good. Maybe you don't spend quite as much time reading to him as you think given that you are constantly in the field, are in court for every case, consult with Barba on everything, and do all the paperwork and command stuff that was a full time job for every previous CO? Just a thought.
Was Barba supposed to be heavily medicated or something? This is right in his wheelhouse and he seemed to be meekly following Liv's lead, his conversation with the judge seemed really subdued, and he didn't really pithily summarize the legal issues.
They really should have used another fictional college or made the school's history an explicit part of the story. We joke about it, but like a lot of you it was a problem for me this time.
The ending. It was unnecessary and didn't really seem to serve any explicit story purpose. Unless this is the wakeup call for Liv that leads her to take down the crusading a notch and maybe go back to policing in which case all is forgiven!

Overall I think they did about as well as they could have with a challenging concept. They might have been able to do a little better with presenting the legal issues and how this was different from the normal lying that just about everyone does, but my biggest problem with this episode is something I don't think can be solved by any single episode - Benson/MH's out of control ego.
 

[MaryHedwig]

Quote

They really should have used another fictional college or made the school's history an explicit part of the story. We joke about it, but like a lot of you it was a problem for me this time.

Yes, us die-hard SVU fans might imagine sleeping with someone to guarantee our child does not go to Hudson.

[Primetimer]

And the episode itself shows us two faces, with zippy dialogue and strong acting culminating in a cheap shocker.

View the full article

[skittl3862]

Rape by deception does have legal precedent. Israel has a couple cases that are similar to this, which is probably what inspired it. One man was convicted of fraud because he told women he was a neurosurgeon. Another man claimed to be a government official and promised when state benefits if they had sex with him, and he was charged with rape.

So the premise wasn't completely out of left field for me. It's a real legal discussion and many states have bills pending, but people are concerned it leads to a slippery slope, which the show addressed with the judge and Barba.

I guess I liked having a case that was a little outside the formula. I get sick of the weekly "Pretty young woman is raped by an evil man, Benson holds her hand while she cries, it goes to trial and the evil man is convicted and send to jail." It's like watching an after-school special.

In the early seasons, there were a lot more episodes where the cases weren't straight forward, the victims weren't always portrayed as innocent angels but complicated human beings, the cops aren't magically always in the right, and there weren't always neat, satisfying endings. I miss that. I want to watch a compelling TV show, not a PSA.  Especially since we're in a world where we see Brock Turners getting a slap on the wrist for rapes; the story SVU is peddling isn't realistic. Every time one of these real life cases happens and reminds us the real state of rape law in America, the fairy tale TV endings become more and more grating.

I liked Benson and Fin paired up together. The first three episodes this season had more Fin than all of Season 17 combined. I'm glad Ice-T is being given interesting work instead of just popping up for a punchline. The show really did a disservice to the character in the years after Munch left.

The kid's suicide in the end- eh, I could have done without. I would have preferred an ending where the guy got off and they were all left wondering if they did the right thing.

[JyDanzig]

I feel like they fell in love with the whiplash moment in the teaser of wanting to cut from enthusiastic consent to "I'm going to overdose because of this rape trauma", and then contorted the entire rest of the story to justify it.  As minamurray78 suggests, the way to make this story work would have been to put the mother in a situation that was actually desperate.  Her child is dying of cancer, the security guard is masquerading as an elite surgeon, and he explicitly promises access to the new cutting-edge trial that offers the child his only hope of survival, in exchange for sex.  Then she has the sex under duress, it's so traumatizing she can't put on a good front (so we lose aforementioned teaser moment), the husband knows she's doing it and also finds it shattering that his wife has to do this for a chance to save their child, the child dies horribly anyway... That's a situation that feels criminal enough that you think "there need to be laws for this!"  In the episode we actually saw, the women come off as badly as the perp.

Though, I am willing to give them a pass on the highly competitive admissions at the prestigious Hudson University -- clearly, it's just that Hudson has the most incredible public relations department in all of academia!

http://www.scoutingny.com/why-you-should-never-ever-go-to-new-york-citys-hudson-university/
 

Meanwhile, next week's episode title -- "Heightened Emotions"  -- two words, 18 letters!  Are we back to that again?!?

[Spartan Girl]

10 hours ago, minamurray78 said:

I'll confess, I completely failed to feel sorry for the mother anyway. She was not a "desperate mother who was vulnerable and open for someone to take advantadge of". Like if her son were sick and with no money, and she was conned into sleeping with a guy because he promised her a cure he couldn't actually procure. (which still sounds like a con not a rape but I don't know). She was an elitist and a snob, willing to pimp herself to get her kid into the top school no matter what, as if he didn't have good enough grades (and money) to attend any other great schools in the country, or even abroad. Right, she was terrified his life would suck like hers because she dropped out of college, even though she went on and married a rich guy. Please. These women complaining about all the mechanisms helping underpriviledged kids get into these schools (lol the second mother even admitted her daughter was smart but not that smart) so of course they go ahead and try to cheat to get their kids in anyway. The entitlement ugh.

I agree.  She was hustled, but she CHOSE to get hustled.  She was so obsessed with her kid going to that school just to live vicariously through him.  She cheated on her perfectly nice husband and ruined her family all for nothing.

[MaggieG]

14 hours ago, yogi2014L said:

My husband went on like a 5 minute rant about the entire premise of this episode LOL. I had to agree. The sex, was consensual regardless of who she thought he was. Sorry you didn't think to google this guy BEFORE you slept with him. This may be the first episode where I was fully on the side of the defense. 

I do think the guy is a big POS -but lying to get laid is hardly illegal. 

Additionally didn't the woman also kind of commit a crime? like sex in exchange for services? Prostitution?

The second "victim" said it best- we both hustled. 

And killing the kid at the end was totes unnecessary.

Agree with all of this. I also agreed with the defense attorney, they guy was a scumbag, not a rapist.

[gesundheit]

I'm in lockstep with the review that this episode absolutely brought up some compelling questions about what qualifies as valid consent, but it completely botched the ending with that pointless suicide. I mean I guess the idea was that Liv was supposed to feel awful for having used that family as a pawn in her agenda, but the questions that arose were worth asking. I don't know that I think such things should constitute rape, but that doesn't mean it should be entirely legal to blatantly defraud someone that way. (I also think there's a big distinction between "pretending to be rich/successful/famous to get laid" and "actually offering an impossible compensation [college admission in this case] in exchange for sex."

And the guy was seriously overwritten. I know he was supposed to be exceedingly enchanted by his own scams, but it's never not hilarious to me when the people on this show go out of their way to brag and provide more ammunition to SVU.

It also irritated me no end to have all these people complaining about how hard it is for white people to get into college and leaving that unchecked. It's realistic that there are entitled assholes out there who have that opinion, but if you're going to bring it up so often you have to assert some sort of POV.

[gesundheit]

It also cracked me up that they wrote a defense attorney to claim to a Manhattan jury that this was all just Barba trying to push his "liberal agenda." No defense attorney would hedge their bets like that with an NYC jury unless it happened to 12 NY Post editors or something.

[shapeshifter]

The son's suicide would've worked if they had shown a more in depth conversation between Liv and the mom about what testifying was like (humiliation in the media, possibly losing, etc.). Then his suicide would've echoed back to his feelings about his mom's obsession with charting his life and her lack of attention to his feelings about college selection. Maybe they cut something or just figured her testimony about wanting her son to have what she didn't was good enough.

She should've just gone back to college herself.  

[JyDanzig]

You know, maybe the burning desire to get into Hudson University isn't so inconsistent with it's crime-ridden history after all.  If you can make it to graduation without being murdered or incarcerated, it must be like winning the Hunger Games.  You can write your own ticket anywhere with the respect that will buy you!

[Monkeybball]

I can't even parse through all the issues I had with this episode right now so I'll just start with one since someone mentioned Ice-T's line about Melle Mel - I REALLY don't like what they did/are doing with Ice-T with this kinda shit.  I'm sorry, but Fin has been in SVU for what? 16 years? Yeah, it's a funny line, and of course his point is well taken, but the way it was framed was so ick for a detective that's been investigating rapes for the better part of his career.  We've seen sensitive Fin before, and it's fun when he presents his "street smarts" to the squad, but this just seemed so out of character for a detective in this unit.  Idk why it bothered me so much, but it felt like there were some overtones that I can't quite articulate but I really didn't like.

[devious455]

I'm still angry at this episode so I need to [rant]: 

'Law & Order: Benson and her loyal minions' were in full action this week. They are like cute puppies that bark but don't bite. Fin said that it wasn't rape, Amanda said that it wasn't rape, Barba said that there is no statute in NY law for that but Benson said that she WANTS the law to be different so everybody went along. They prosecuted that guy for everything he wasn't guilty of instead of what he could be guilty of: fraud, impersonating different person, defamation, breaking and entering or I don't know what else. Result? Ruined family, marriage, death of innocent boy and a slap on a wrist for guy who will probably continue to lie to women. Job well done, folks. How many times Benson needed to repeat herself before sleep that they did the right thing to actually believe it? If she wants to change laws maybe she could call her pal VP instead of pulling stunts like that. Or go work some place else. 

This episode could really start debate about rape by deception but they only painted characters in terrible light and angered people. 

I'm not sure if I can watch a show where I root for everybody but main characters. This week I loved the judge and the defense lawyer. Last week I listened to Buchanan and he was making better points than Barba. What's next? 

SVU desperately need a new detective. Somebody who can stand behind their opinion and challenge Benson. Barba from season 14 is unfortunately dead and this Barba 2.0 is a disgrace (and he is my favorite character). I can't look at Carisi for 20 minutes. He has no charisma and he can't keep my attention for more than 2 minutes. And maybe instead of constant reminders that he is a lawyer they could make him act like one so he should not just silently stand next to his colleague who is botching up witness identification (last week). We know he won't leave and he has already dealt with that dilemma in season 17 finale so why bring it again? I know Barba desperately wants him to leave but it's huge waste of time. I don't care about "funny" and "cute" banter between Carisi and Rollins either, so another waste of time. 

Strong character could bring some fresh air and a different perspective so please don't wait any longer. Because three detectives and Benson format doesn't work. 

Next week: Rollins' sister. Is here at least one person who wants that storyline to be back?  [/rant] 

[Snookums]

Quote

Rape by deception does have legal precedent. Israel has a couple cases that are similar to this, which is probably what inspired it. One man was convicted of fraud because he told women he was a neurosurgeon. Another man claimed to be a government official and promised when state benefits if they had sex with him, and he was charged with rape.

There was also a case in England where a woman met a man online, chatted, got to know him, they met up for sex, but the man said he had a lot of body issues and had to do it with the lights off. Turned out the "man" was a woman and used a dildo. She was successfully prosecuted for rape by deception. 

So it's not like there's no precedent. (Granted that was not New York law, but you've got to get the fire built under the legislature somehow, as Barba pointed out.) But what drives me crazy is the WILLFUL IGNORING of all the illegal things the perp did that could have built a strong case and shown that so so important Pattern Of Behavior.

1) This guy used his security clearance to enter the actual Dean of Admissions' office and steal letterhead (burglary, theft)

2) He used the Dean's identity to meet and sway women by demanding sex in exchange for admissions (defamation of character) (If I was that Dean I'd be filing every civil suit I could possibly bring)

3) He conspired with that toad of a front desk clerk to use a tenant's apartment for his trysts without permission (trespassing, maybe B&E but probably not if he didn't break in).

4) He used other letterheads (for Stanford School of Medicine) to further his con with other women (false representation.) 

This guy is a predator. He willfully designed a con, picked out certain victims, lied to them and offered them something he wasn't in a position to grant in direct exchange for sexual favors (Solicitation! Larceny by false promise!) There were actual legal grounds to build a case that didn't rely on revulsion or ethics that didn't have representation in law. Not doing so makes everybody look so fucking stupid!

Laura may have been horrifically foolish but she's certainly not the only parent to channel her terror and desperation into something like  college admissions, especially when you've got yourself convinced that it's the "only" way to a decent life for your child. Granted, I cannot say why anybody would think Hudson, Hellmouth of the East Coast could grant that, but I don't have kids to put through school. And I wonder how this case might have turned out if Tom Metcalf had been trolling the husbands? What if her spouse was the one to do this? Would people be so quick to call him stupid/idiotic? So eager to say it was his fault for not Googling beforehand? Would it have been considered a "realer" violation?

[WendyCR72]

Let's keep the "evil men/victimized women" mantra and vice versa out of this discussion and stick strictly to the characters and the episode at hand. Thank you.

[Gigi43]

They lost me from the jump that a parent would really want their kid to go to Hudson that badly. I mean... is that magically not suppose to be a rape/death trap anymore. Come on, show.

 

I think the guy actually deserved the "criminal impersonation" charge but not at all for the reason he was. He could have damaged the actual Admissions guys career if the case was that word had been getting around "he" was trading sex for admissions. But for lying to the women who were basically prostituting themselves? No. I had no sympathy for the "victim" what so ever and that ending was cheap attempt at shock value.  I almost turned it off when the woman said to Barba and Benson at the courthouse "my husband is going to divorce me" Well, yeah. The guys' identity doesn't change you cheated on him one f*cking bit.

 

Also, the idea that these parents were so invested in getting their kids into that college, in this Google/social media age, didn't know what the admissions guy looked like was just bad.

[skittl3862]

4 hours ago, gesundheit said:

I'm in lockstep with the review that this episode absolutely brought up some compelling questions about what qualifies as valid consent, but it completely botched the ending with that pointless suicide. I mean I guess the idea was that Liv was supposed to feel awful for having used that family as a pawn in her agenda, but the questions that arose were worth asking. I don't know that I think such things should constitute rape, but that doesn't mean it should be entirely legal to blatantly defraud someone that way. (I also think there's a big distinction between "pretending to be rich/successful/famous to get laid" and "actually offering an impossible compensation [college admission in this case] in exchange for sex."

I agree. I think this guy was committing fraud, but not rape, which is where the trial seemed to be leading in this episode as well. Rape was too much of a stretch. I think there are cases where the fraud definitely counts as rape (identical twins switching places, Revenge of the Nerds moonbounce, etc.) and the case is to be made, but not this case.

 

1 hour ago, Monkeybball said:

I can't even parse through all the issues I had with this episode right now so I'll just start with one since someone mentioned Ice-T's line about Melle Mel - I REALLY don't like what they did/are doing with Ice-T with this kinda shit.  I'm sorry, but Fin has been in SVU for what? 16 years? Yeah, it's a funny line, and of course his point is well taken, but the way it was framed was so ick for a detective that's been investigating rapes for the better part of his career.  We've seen sensitive Fin before, and it's fun when he presents his "street smarts" to the squad, but this just seemed so out of character for a detective in this unit.  Idk why it bothered me so much, but it felt like there were some overtones that I can't quite articulate but I really didn't like.

I didn't see it that way. I think he had a valid point- and the show emphasized that in the scene at the bar with the overheard conversations- everyone has probably lied to impress someone they want to sleep with. Usually the lies are water under the bridge in the long run. Rollins didn't think it was rape either, and she's an SVU detective and a woman. I don't think it makes them insensitive to rape victims; the definition of rape as they enforce it doesn't match this situation. If anything, I thought that scene made Benson look prudish, for lack of a better term, for acting like she can't possibly imagine a situation in which anyone lie for the sake of impressing a potential sexual partner. "Times have changed" doesn't mean that a guy inflating his salary or suggesting he knows a famous person turns an otherwise consensual sexual encounter into rape.

[CleoCaesar]

Quote

There was also a case in England where a woman met a man online, chatted, got to know him, they met up for sex, but the man said he had a lot of body issues and had to do it with the lights off. Turned out the "man" was a woman and used a dildo. She was successfully prosecuted for rape by deception. 

Seems like that would be a very slippery slope (didn't Barba or the defense attorney say as much?). For example, guy meets girl in bar, they have sex. Girl later finds out that guy is trans/was born biologically female and feels violated. Could she claim rape because he didn't disclose his biological sex? Such a law would have SO many nuances and exceptions that I don't think it could realistically be workable across the board. Everyone in this episode seemed to realize that, except for St. Benson.

[wknt3]

6 hours ago, skittl3862 said:

Rape by deception does have legal precedent. Israel has a couple cases that are similar to this, which is probably what inspired it. One man was convicted of fraud because he told women he was a neurosurgeon. Another man claimed to be a government official and promised when state benefits if they had sex with him, and he was charged with rape.

So the premise wasn't completely out of left field for me. It's a real legal discussion and many states have bills pending, but people are concerned it leads to a slippery slope, which the show addressed with the judge and Barba.

It is a real legal discussion and I thought the premise was a strong one (albeit one that a lot of the audience would have a hard time accepting). This is the sort of thing L&O always did and SVU has done in the past - create a story as a way to explore legal debates and social issues. I do have a problem with Liv being the one to make the decision, but it was an interesting issue and one that they haven't done a dozen times already.

2 hours ago, JyDanzig said:

You know, maybe the burning desire to get into Hudson University isn't so inconsistent with it's crime-ridden history after all.  If you can make it to graduation without being murdered or incarcerated, it must be like winning the Hunger Games.  You can write your own ticket anywhere with the respect that will buy you!

This reminds of what is probably my favorite line ever from the internet - "I graduated Sunnydale High School only to go to Hudson University."

[StaceyNotStacie]

In theory, this was an interesting episode, but the delivery was horrible. You'd think that they would alert the media to let prospective students and parents know that there was an impersonator from the admissions office targeting women, and then women coming out of the woodwork. 

I wish we could have seen the fallout for the defendant after the son's suicide. 

[wales260]

Racking my old law school brain, I believe in Common Law this was called either "Fraud in the inducement" or "sex by trick". Under common law, there was a higher standard for lack of consent, so it was impossible to to charge someone for rape when they consented to the sexual act.

What he did sounded closer to this act (and therefore not common law rape), as she thought they had a implied contract of sex for admission. Not sure what would happen if he didn't promise anything in return (e.g., she sleeps with a mistaken celebrity for appreciation of the celebrity or for the story instead of for tickets, etc.). 

I also remember the Revenge of the Nerds situation coming up and there being a difference between common law and more modern statutes. [Now this part to me is hazy, but] IIRC, the Model Penal Code has a new class of something like "gross sexual imposition" or some other Victorian-sounding thing like that where it it is a crime if a man sleeps with a women he knows is under mistaken belief that the man is her husband. That's obviously rather specific, but it's at least inching closer to a clear line between fraud and rape.

Edited October 7, 2016 by wales260

[augmentedfourth]

My hipster cousin from Park Slope (and her sometimes-bearded husband) got me artisan pickles for Christmas the year I was pregnant, so I laughed at that. Like many others, I also laughed at the fact that Hudson University is now apparently this elite prestigious school that's near impossible to get into.

 

Other than that...meh, I don't know. I guess the premise was interesting enough and could have led to a great moral debate, but the execution fell flat. I'm about as hippie liberal feminist as they come (possibly even more so than my cousin in Brooklyn), but I was having difficulty seeing this as a rape. Maybe we all should just be checking IDs of everyone we sleep with before the pants come off. Might cut down on some statutory rape as well.

[shapeshifter]

I would likely see it as rape in a pre-internet, pre-Google world. But it's ludicrous that this obsessed mom wouldn't have combed through the pages of all schools she deemed worthy to find and stalk the admissions staff. They should've made the imposter more of a manipulative sociopath than they did to make it believable — at least have him put up a fake page with his own picture or something. 

[The Wild Sow]

They didn't have to convict him.  They didn't even have to prosecute him.

All they had to do was OUT him!  Jeez, Liv knows reporters, doesn't she?  Plaster his face all over the news, all over the internet! Make sure every woman in New York --  heck, every woman in the USA -- knows his game.  He might not get punished for the women he's fooled so far, but it's a pretty fair bet he's not going to be able to do it AGAIN!

[Hero]

I used to get excited when a new episode of SVU would air, but now it feels like a chore to watch. It's sad because SVU used to be my favorite show. I'm glad that they show re-runs.

Can someone please just get rid of Olivia? She adds nothing to the show. Everything about her character has to involve some kind of tragedy. How about a show with everyone else minus Olivia? 

[WendyCR72]

1 hour ago, Suzy123 said:

Can someone please just get rid of Olivia?

In all seriousness, I am curious if, say, Finn could carry the show should Mariska ever want to hang it up. But realistically, I think once she does decide to leave, the show will, too, if just due to advanced age. Chris Meloni left in S12, but I guess TPTB were looking to use the Mothership model and there was still more to tell. I don't think that is true anymore. Seems like recycling is becoming the norm, when newer boring/bad/incomprehensible stories aren't being shown.

[Snookums]

I think this season TPTB are trying to focus on "grey areas" of the law: is it sexual assault if the victim took part in a terrorist attack? Was wrongly accused and raped in prison? Was lied to for the express purpose of obtaining a sexual encounter from someone who would normally turn the lying party down? But the execution and refusal to take into account things we the audience view with our own eyes make the episodes frustrating for the wrong reasons.

[leslieo54]

On October 5, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Muffyn said:

(How did Stabler get his daughter into this elite school?)   

This was my question, like so many of you - Hudson is now the next best thing to a Ivy League school, and Elliott's dopey kid(s) got in? Yeah, that's likely...

 I also didn't really understand how the mother's computer seemed to work - didn't she say she had seen the guy under the admissions director's name on some random professor's Instagram? Was she directed there by the worst search engine in the world, did Tom thrust his phone in her face, opened to it, mid-coitus, or was it something else entirely? Oh, SVU... why can't I quit you? 

Edited October 7, 2016 by leslieo54

[Princess Lucky]

SVU is losing me. I practically made myself watch this episode, Thursday night, because I didn't want to fall behind.

I fast-forwarded through some parts (as I said, losing me) but did anyone, Liv or Barba, warn the woman that a conviction was HIGHLY unlikely? Did they tell her they were trying out an almost experimental approach, and there was no law to support the charges? Did they tell her that, even if the jury decided in her favor, the judge would probably overturn the verdict because no judge would want to be the one setting the precedent for this? Or was the woman shocked to learn of the plea deal in the end, because she had trusted Benson's "it's rape (except not legally)"?

Why would Barba even take on this case? Why didn't he tell Liv what other legal options they had? Fraud, civil court, the actual crimes the guy did commit (as mentioned above)? Whatever.

At least this episode had more Carisi, and he was all smiley again, so that was good.

But next week's episode will have Kim fucking Rollins, and that is not good. Ugh. I was watching the Criminal Minds promo and I saw Paget Brewster and I squealed. And SVU wants to give me Kim Rollins? Nope. I'll watch Criminal Minds live (like I did this week) and SVU over the weekend.

[wknt3]

6 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

In all seriousness, I am curious if, say, Finn could carry the show should Mariska ever want to hang it up. But realistically, I think once she does decide to leave, the show will, too, if just due to advanced age. Chris Meloni left in S12, but I guess TPTB were looking to use the Mothership model and there was still more to tell. I don't think that is true anymore. Seems like recycling is becoming the norm, when newer boring/bad/incomprehensible stories aren't being shown.

As far as Fin is concerned I am pretty sure Ice T and his character have a lot in common. He is not interested in moving up to lead and is happy to be a steady veteran presence who can be counted on to not foul things up too badly and just wants to do the job he signed up for and get his paycheck. If anything Carisi would be the new lead, but I agree with you that if Mariska leaves the show is done. It's pretty clear that NBC is convinced (and probably has viewer research to back up the idea) that some sizable portion of the audience is watching just to see what happens to Benson. It's the only reason they would allow her to take over the show so thoroughly even when it's to the detriment of the overall quality like in this episode where instead of writing the victim as hell bent for leather initially and Barba deciding to push the envelope and try to advance the law it is St. Benson who feels her pain and is the only one who understands just how bad the perp is and everyone else just follows.

[wknt3]

3 hours ago, leslieo54 said:

This was my question, like so many of you - Hudson is now the next best thing to a Ivy League school, and Elliott's dopey kid(s) got in? Yeah, that's likely...

Well Hudson was supposed to be an amalgam of Columbia and NYU. And before I worked in banking I worked in higher ed for one of those "not quite Ivies" and yes it is possible for a school to manipulate rankings and increase prestige and applications. So I don't have a huge problem with Hudson being elite. As far as Elliott's kids that was bad writing, but it can easily be fanwanked. They might have tested well and Stabler did probably have some contacts and knows where the bodies are buried on campus. Literally.

[jamblastx]

44 comments before mine and unless I missed it, everyone is essentially agreeing that while this dude was reprehensible, the crime was not rape. Plus they framed it with an unlikable 'victim' who was playing her own con game. Was it the 'best sex ever' or was she saying that to help get her son into the suddenly prestigious Hudson? If it was the latter, then she was bullshitting Metcalf (just as he was bullshitting her), and if it was the former, then she had a willing affair that ONLY turned sour when she found out he was not the dean of admissions. The REAL victim in this whole thing was the husband and kid

SVU is losing me and it's almost become an 'obligation' watch rather than one I want to see. Actually, I'd rather just have an original Law and Order reboot

[Princess Lucky]

2 hours ago, jamblastx said:

44 comments before mine and unless I missed it, everyone is essentially agreeing that while this dude was reprehensible, the crime was not rape. Plus they framed it with an unlikable 'victim' who was playing her own con game. Was it the 'best sex ever' or was she saying that to help get her son into the suddenly prestigious Hudson? If it was the latter, then she was bullshitting Metcalf (just as he was bullshitting her), and if it was the former, then she had a willing affair that ONLY turned sour when she found out he was not the dean of admissions. The REAL victim in this whole thing was the husband and kid

SVU is losing me and it's almost become an 'obligation' watch rather than one I want to see. Actually, I'd rather just have an original Law and Order reboot

I was going to say, she kept saying "my life/family is ruined now", but she didn't think sleeping with another man to get her kid into college(!) was going to ruin everything? Forget the husband, what if her son somehow found out she fucked the dean of admissions to get him accepted? Or, hypothetically speaking, what if the creepy perp actually was the dean of admissions, and was using his real position to sleep with desperate(?) mothers, but afterwards said "thanks, I had a great time, but your kid is still not getting in"? Would she still think that was rape? After the fact? Even though the guy wouldn't have misrepresented himself, just his intentions to help her kid? Would Benson think that's rape? (/rhetorical question)

I wish the show had given more nuance to the legal aspect of this case. Not "this this rape, and the law is behind the times" but "what is this, exactly?" Less preaching and more creative thought. I bet Barba could have nailed this guy on five different charges (just not rape). This is becoming a trend this season. Interesting cases which are given a very superficial treatment. Wasted potential.

The only positive was the team interactions, and the fact Fin is still getting a nice amount of screentime. That's the only good aspect of S18. That, and Carisi, who apparently took a chill pill between last week and this one. And not a moment too soon.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Princess Lucky

[shapeshifter]

This show has never been must-see TV for me, and yet I wind up seeing every episode sooner or later. But for this season, at least for now, Frequency is live viewing and SVU is when I get around to it. BTW, although Frequency has a communicating-across-time element, it is basically a crime show.

[marceline]

The most puzzling thing to me was the utter non-reaction of the guy being impersonated. If the sex cops walked into my office and said that someone was impersonating me to get laid, my first reaction would be, "Can you wait while I grab my coat because I'm going to whoop his ass with my bare hands." I at least wanted him to say, "That skinny white loser is pretending to be ME?!" His professional reputation was at stake and he didn't seem to care.

[shapeshifter]

Good point, @marceline. If they had prosecuted him for defamation of character, impersonation, or any of the other charges mentioned above, it would have been a win, and I doubt the son would've killed himself if the perp was found guilty.