S18.E05: Rape Interrupted

[auntiemel]

1 hour ago, WineCheeseChocolat said:

Also, turning an unambiguous real-life case into a much more ambiguous episode feels icky to me. Especially so soon after.

Agreed 100%.

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

Law & Order: SVU Is Liv-ing In The Past

When the show tackles the Brock Turner case, an ER reunion makes us all feel kinda sick.

[skittl3862]

22 hours ago, yogi2014L said:

I didn't like the rapid change of heart from the rapist. he couldn't even apologize at first because he was sooo innocent-and all it took was his dad lying for him? Not the victims statement? Otherwise it was an ok episode, at least I wasn't on the rapist's side this time lol.  I actually don't know what I thought. 

It could have been he started to remember what happened that night and felt guilty. He was drunk too; they kept focusing on the victim regaining memories, but not him. They brought him in, had him sober up in the interrogation room with a cup of coffee and expected an accurate account of what happened. I had 2 glasses of wine last night and this morning, I couldn't remember what shoes I wore yesterday because I was foggy. 

 

22 hours ago, CleoCaesar said:

Great points, Mary Ann. Unfortunately in the current climate one can't raise points like that without being accused of "victim blaming". IMO the pendulum has swung so ridiculously in the other direction. Women seem to want to drink a gallon of alcohol and just expect the world to be safe and perfect with no horny unprincipled people in it. That's just not how it works. People - male and female - have to keep themselves as safe as reasonably possible and not put themselves into dangerous stupid situations, like passing out behind a dumpster. It doesn't give anyone the right to hurt them and it's still 100% the rapist's fault. But people need to know their own limits too and at least try to be safe.

The defense attorney DID make a great point, as you said. If I were on that jury, I would genuinely have no idea what to believe. Reasonable doubt all over the place.

Yeah, I don't like the show/current climate/SJW viewers conflating "victim blaming" with any suggestion the victim is anything less than Mother Teresa. What if Janie got blacked-out drunk, walked out into traffic and got run over by a car? Her drunkenness would be taken into account in the investigation of the traffic accident. "Victim blaming" was supposed to mean the a-holes who see a rape victim and say "She was wearing a short skirt, she was drunk, it was her sole responsibility to stop the rape from happening." Janie was drinking and alone, which left her in a vulnerable situation to be preyed upon. That's not victim blaming.

 

13 hours ago, Princess Lucky said:

I picked the wrong episode to watch live.

Benson was fine with a clearly emotional victim, weeping as she said "I don't want to testify?" But in the last episode she pressured that athlete to testify, even though it would ruin her career and her dreams (which it did), and in the one before that, Benson pressured that mother to testify, even though she wasn't even raped and a trial would ruin her family (which it did)? Even though both of those women had real reasons to want to avoid a trial (the reveal one was a prostitute and the other had willingly cheated on her husband)? Benson pushed them, but last night she was fine with a plea deal?

Not to mention, she was fine with the rapist getting probation?!!! No jail time at all? In that Hudson episode, she wanted to go to trial even though the guy wasn't even a rapist, not by law, and she still wanted him to fry. She was all "we have to make a point." And this week she goes soft on an actual rapist?

The difference between the last episode with athlete and this episode is that in the athlete's case, there wasn't enough of a case to force a plea deal. Without the trial, the rapist would walk scot-free. Same with the Hudson admissions episode- if they didn't take it to trial, there was no motivation for him to take a plea, because the law was on his side. In this episode, the rapist was willing to plead guilty to a felony, be on probation for 10 years, register as a sex offender and apologize to the victim. He would be found guilty without a trial, and the victim (not Benson) was fine with it.

I saw someone make this complaint on Twitter as well, but what was Olivia supposed to do? The girl was sobbing and said she was going to therapy daily and it wasn't helping, and she just wants this all to be over. Should Olivia have kept pressuring her to take it to trial anyway? Risk the emotional well-being of an already unstable victim for the chance of getting a harsher sentence? "Yay, we got jail time but she'll never emotionally recover from the ordeal and possibly attempt suicide!" Some people don't seem to care about portraying the realistic impact on the victim, because it's a procedural and we say goodbye to Janie after this week and don't have to think about the fact that, regardless of probation or jail time, her face is still all over the internet as "Dumpster Girl" and she has a long road of recovery ahead of her.

I want to see a just conclusion for the victim, not a crusade for Benson (and the show) to nail the rapists to the wall and make an example of them at all costs. Maybe Benson learned from her mistakes in the Hudson episode.

Edited October 28, 2016 by skittl3862

[kelslamu]

3 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

It's really not much different than a designated driver. Two drunk friends, regardless of gender, are easy prey to predators of all sorts. But I don't think I've heard or read recommendations to have a sober companion when out partying or otherwise under the influence in a place that might not be safe (i.e., any public place). I don't recall if the cousin was sober or not, but she seemed to be looking out for the victim, but then lost track of her — like there was no concrete understanding that she would look out for her the whole night.

I would think most people wouldn't need a recommendation for something like that.  Common sense says don't drink too much and if you know you are likely to do so then try to get someone to go with you that you trust.   Just my take on things.

[skittl3862]

3 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

It's really not much different than a designated driver. Two drunk friends, regardless of gender, are easy prey to predators of all sorts. But I don't think I've heard or read recommendations to have a sober companion when out partying or otherwise under the influence in a place that might not be safe (i.e., any public place). I don't recall if the cousin was sober or not, but she seemed to be looking out for the victim, but then lost track of her — like there was no concrete understanding that she would look out for her the whole night.

Actually that came up in another SVU episode- Gray. The counselor at Hudson tried to promote a "sober buddy system" and Kathleen Stabler said everyone wants to be her buddy because she doesn't drink. I've never heard of it in real life.

Edited October 28, 2016 by skittl3862

[Snookums]

Quote

If both people were drunk, why is the male automatically the perpetrator?

In the case shown in the episode, because the woman passed out, negating consent. I have known many men who were assaulted--by both men and women--because they were too drunk to consent, or maybe were into it earlier but passed out later. Most of them never thought of it as assault, seeing their "not being able to hold their liquor" as revoking their right to say yes or no, even if the person they were with wasn't somebody they wanted to be with, even if they were in circumstances that they never would have okayed. Even if the other person was drunk too. 

If the season keeps up the theme of "grey rape" I hope they do an episode focusing on this. Men have as much right to give and withdraw consent at any time. Whether their partner is a man or woman. Whether or not they're drunk. Whether or not they have an erection. Whether or not they're with their girl or boyfriend. AT ANY TIME. 

[candall]

It's hard enough to get someone to agree to be the sober driver.  I don't see a lot of people signing up to go to a party and not drink so they can keep their sloppy flirty drunk friends from going too far and needing to be dragged out of a "too drunk to consent" situation.  Pass.

 

Re the case, I totally bought his story that they were kissing, the girl fumbled at his belt and then she toppled over into the garbage bags and he toppled after her and it was so funky, it was kind of fun and hilarious.  Now, did he make all that up?  I don't think the show clarified that point, but it might make a difference to me where I come down on degree of guilt.

 

The very strange point, for me, was when Rollins was interviewing the cousin, who had dated Ellis, and she said, "It didn't last long.  He was very aggressive, sexually."  Then Rollins totally ignores that, in terms of asking "Aggressive, HOW, exactly?" and changes the subject back to the night of the party.  I thought I'd really picked up a clue there, that would become important later, but . . . nope.

 

I didn't think this was a very good episode.  Honestly, I felt both sorry for, and irritated at, everyone.

[Kel Varnsen]

22 hours ago, yogi2014L said:

I thought it was going to go that way- drunk means you can't consent and I ALMOST thought they would have played the fact that he was drunk too and maybe she was the one who raped him. Just something to think about when you have two drunk people. 

That actually would have made a more interesting episode for me.

9 hours ago, CleoCaesar said:

I wish that could be how she's listed in the credits. Her schedule must revolve around Noah and his mother's insane work hours. She probably sees more of Noah than Liv does.

Yea, when she called her sitter at the beginning and said she was going to be late I really wondered why. You are a damn lieutenant, do some delegating. It was a relatively straight forward case, so I was really hoping she would walk out the door saying something like "Fin, you got this one right?".

I was also really surprised that Anthony Edwards didn't ask her at the end what how far she would go if it was her son. Then again I couldn't stop thinking about how they were a couple back in the day on ER, so the mentor/manatee relationship was weird.

[WendyCR72]

11 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

so the mentor/manatee relationship was weird.

Well, mentoring a sea animal is weird! (Sorry! I couldn't resist. But after the horrific ER reminder, we're even. LOL! UGH, Cynthia.)

[CelticBlackCat]

Since I fell off the wagon last season in May and stopped watching L&O:SVU until this season's premiere, I missed the whole Tucker meets Benson thing.  If he is in IAB, isn't it a conflict for him to be romancing a potential officer gone bad?  I don't know a thing about this ship.  Is it Tuckson?  When I saw him with her this season, he looked a lot older than her, but then when she was with Brian Cassidy, he looked too young for her (and seemed to emotionally immature for her).  Anyway, the "It's complicated" thing is old already.  Maybe at this late stage in his life, Tucker doesn't want to be a daddy to young Noah?

The babysitter Lucy should have a whole agency behind her for when she's stuck taking care of Noah 24 hours a day!

One good thing about this epi:  No Noah!

[JyDanzig]

One little detail I found so heartbreaking: when Rollins proposes to the victim that she have a rape kit, and she breaks down as she responds with "I don't have insurance, how much does it cost?" 

There were interesting ideas rattling around in this episode, though it was undercooked, and ultimately ruined by that completely unearned, out-of-nowhere ending.  

I thought both the Janey and Ellis actors were so strong, I wish they'd just let it be a case where he truly believed it was consensual, and she truly believed it was rape, but the heavy drinking makes both of their views untrustworthy, and then really drill down and grapple with that.  Cut the whole Benson-first-partner thing, save that for when you can get Meloni back for an episode where Dickie is accused of rape.

I also thought the ripped-from-the-headlines stuff really tripped them up this week.  The real story of Brock Turner was a poor fit for the themes they spent most of the episode exploring... and then the tacked-on ending felt like a wish-fulfillment resolution for the real case, ignoring how badly it fit the episode.

Also, if we had to have climactic theatrics, I was hoping for a reveal that it was the angry cousin who had somehow masterminded the whole thing for revenge against Ellis.  There was more set-up for that than the ending we actually saw.

[Princess Lucky]

12 hours ago, WineCheeseChocolat said:

Also, turning an unambiguous real-life case into a much more ambiguous episode feels icky to me. Especially so soon after.

I completely agree.

But imagine a different scenario.

What if, instead of trying to make Brock Turner sympathetic for a twist, they tried to make his father sympathetic?

What if, instead of trying to show what a great guy the rapist was, they had him be totally unrepentant? Acting like a saint in front of the squad, but boasting about it in private? What if his father, who is a cop(!!!), accidentally discovered, say, a few texts in which his son was bragging to his friends about having raped that girl? And the father still struggled with it, until the last possible minute, but eventually came around, and gave the squad the incriminating evidence? Because he's a cop and he's supposed to do the right thing? Even when his son's life is on the line? Because he knew his son was a rapist? What if the father apologized to Olivia for being so blind? And for dismissing the victim's concerns? Wouldn't that give a better message, while still showing us the father's pain?

With this episode, the message I got was "cops are corrupt, and they'll plant evidence to help their families, and other cops will totally cover up crimes to help out their buddies".

Yay?

Remember that first Gary Cole episode, from Season 5? About campus rape and hazing? When he played a defense attorney who purposely led the defendant's testimony in order to help Casey nail him on the stand? That's one of my favorite moments ever. I'd love to see something like that again.

11 hours ago, Monkeybball said:

That's interesting....I could actually kind of see that based on the lead up.  I'm sure that would not have been a popular premise though and would have cause an uproar among most of the audience.

Last season there was that Romeo and Juliet-type episode that dealt with this type of a murky situation in a better way (17x12, here's the recap and the thread). Two teenagers attracted to each other, peer pressure, alcohol. A more genuinely sympathetic perp, due to his younger age and inexperience, a more sympathetic victim due to her age and inexperience. In the end, the guy wasn't convicted, and the girl apologized in tears. And, even despite that, it was clear (because, unlike this season, we saw it happen) that something bad had happened between them, something the girl didn't want and something the guy knew was wrong (i.e. he had penetrated her digitally, despite her clear, if weak, protests). That, to me, was a more decent way to "blur the lines".

9 hours ago, skittl3862 said:

The difference between the last episode with athlete and this episode is that in the athlete's case, there wasn't enough of a case to force a plea deal. Without the trial, the rapist would walk scot-free. Same with the Hudson admissions episode- if they didn't take it to trial, there was no motivation for him to take a plea, because the law was on his side. In this episode, the rapist was willing to plead guilty to a felony, be on probation for 10 years, register as a sex offender and apologize to the victim. He would be found guilty without a trial, and the victim (not Benson) was fine with it.

I saw someone make this complaint on Twitter as well, but what was Olivia supposed to do? The girl was sobbing and said she was going to therapy daily and it wasn't helping, and she just wants this all to be over. Should Olivia have kept pressuring her to take it to trial anyway? Risk the emotional well-being of an already unstable victim for the chance of getting a harsher sentence? "Yay, we got jail time but she'll never emotionally recover from the ordeal and possibly attempt suicide!" Some people don't seem to care about portraying the realistic impact on the victim, because it's a procedural and we say goodbye to Janie after this week and don't have to think about the fact that, regardless of probation or jail time, her face is still all over the internet as "Dumpster Girl" and she has a long road of recovery ahead of her.

I want to see a just conclusion for the victim, not a crusade for Benson (and the show) to nail the rapists to the wall and make an example of them at all costs. Maybe Benson learned from her mistakes in the Hudson episode.

 

In the episode with the athlete, Benson didn't hesitate to have a rape victim meet with her rapist(!), like, five minutes after she had been raped. Because the victim's emotional well-being was irrelevant, as long as they nailed him. Justice over her recovery. To me, that was shocking. Victims have a hard time facing their rapist even in a court of law, with cops and several feet between them. Meeting for coffee? One on one? How can you ask that of a victim? And in the Hudson episode, I completely agree that there was no incentive for a deal. But that was only because the guy had not committed a crime. Benson should have sent that woman home and told her to come to terms with her experience, not pressure her to go to trial when there was practicaly zero chance of a conviction (because there was no law against the perv's actions).  But Benson decided to ignore the mother's emotional well-being and go to trial, even though the woman's life would be ruined (not to mention the son, who'd have to find out what his mother did), just to make a point, because there was no way Barba would ever win that case and she knew it.

And, I'm sorry, but Benson hasn't learned much in 18 seasons, and I doubt she's going to start now. Benson is always riding Rollins for covering up for her sister, when Benson herself has done much worse in the past. Just this week she covered for a corrupt cop who tampered with a rape investigation(!!!), but that's fine? A guy she hadn't seen in 30 years? But if Rollins covers up for her sister, her blood, she deserves to lose her badge? Why?

Benson should have arrested Anthony Edwards for the crime(!) he committed, and she should have called him out for his emotionally manipulative tactics. She shouldn't just stare at him with tears in her eyes, like the recap pointed out. She's supposed to be strong, but only when her balding old partners aren't involved, I guess.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Princess Lucky

[wknt3]

17 hours ago, CleoCaesar said:

I wish that could be how she's listed in the credits. Her schedule must revolve around Noah and his mother's insane work hours. She probably sees more of Noah than Liv does.

 

8 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Yea, when she called her sitter at the beginning and said she was going to be late I really wondered why. You are a damn lieutenant, do some delegating. It was a relatively straight forward case, so I was really hoping she would walk out the door saying something like "Fin, you got this one right?".

Leave this alone you guys! Mariska or the producers might read these comments and if they do we won't get fewer mentions and more delegation. We'll get more screen time for Noah so we can see that despite being the only cop in NYC who really understands the victims and fighting the evil men in charge of the system (when they're not promoting her and telling her that she is the most special snowflake ever) and facing the challenges of being a working single mother she is actively involved and not a neglectful parent. Noah in the squad room, Noah kidnapped from the yogurt shop, child abuse in Noah's fancy preschool (which is uncovered thanks to Noah's language abilities that Liv has helped him with), Noah somehow facing false charges from IAB...

[sockii]

5 hours ago, CelticBlackCat said:

Since I fell off the wagon last season in May and stopped watching L&O:SVU until this season's premiere, I missed the whole Tucker meets Benson thing.  If he is in IAB, isn't it a conflict for him to be romancing a potential officer gone bad?  I don't know a thing about this ship.  Is it Tuckson?  When I saw him with her this season, he looked a lot older than her, but then when she was with Brian Cassidy, he looked too young for her (and seemed to emotionally immature for her). 

Tucker left IAB at the end of last season to join the hostage negotiation team.

As far as the age thing, we don't know what Tucker's age is supposed to be but the actor who plays him is 56; Benson is supposed to be 48 (Mariska is 52), that's hardly a noteworthy age difference.

[skittl3862]

5 hours ago, Princess Lucky said:

In the episode with the athlete, Benson didn't hesitate to have a rape victim meet with her rapist(!), like, five minutes after she had been raped. Because the victim's emotional well-being was irrelevant, as long as they nailed him. Justice over her recovery. To me, that was shocking. Victims have a hard time facing their rapist even in a court of law, with cops and several feet between them. Meeting for coffee? One on one? How can you ask that of a victim? And in the Hudson episode, I completely agree that there was no incentive for a deal. But that was only because the guy had not committed a crime. Benson should have sent that woman home and told her to come to terms with her experience, not pressure her to go to trial when there was practicaly zero chance of a conviction (because there was no law against the perv's actions).  But Benson decided to ignore the mother's emotional well-being and go to trial, even though the woman's life would be ruined (not to mention the son, who'd have to find out what his mother did), just to make a point, because there was no way Barba would ever win that case and she knew it.

Benson proposed Jenna the pole vaulter meeting with her rapist as a way to get him to admit something on tape, force a plea and also avoid a trial. And she was immediately on board. Her exact words were "Can we do it, like, now?" Hardly the same as Janie sobbing that she can't eat, she can't sleep, she shouldn't have to do this and all she wants is an apology.

Jenna was obviously emotionally stronger in the aftermath than Janie. In Making a Rapist, people complained they forced the mother to testify and now suddenly in this episode, they think Benson should have forced Janie to testify too. What is wrong with Benson (i.e. the writers) reading the situation, reading the victim, and choosing different paths to justice accordingly? SVU's formula is already paint-by-numbers; I don't want identical victims, identical crimes, identical trials and identical convictions every week.

[Joimiaroxeu]

Quote

Janie was drinking and alone, which left her in a vulnerable situation to be preyed upon. That's not victim blaming.

Yes it is. Being in a vulnerable state doesn't give anyone a pass to take advantage of them. I hope none of the people who think this way ever find themselves in a vulnerable situation where afterwards others are looking to find reasons to blame them for whatever misfortunes befell them. (And I am drawing a distinction between things people do that can harm others, like drunk driving, and things that are done to them, like assault or robbery.)

Quote

Also, turning an unambiguous real-life case into a much more ambiguous episode feels icky to me. Especially so soon after.

ICAM and wonder what the showrunners are trying to accomplish with this stuff other than ratings. At a certain point I think they may be contributing to the problem.

[Princess Lucky]

1 hour ago, skittl3862 said:

Benson proposed Jenna the pole vaulter meeting with her rapist as a way to get him to admit something on tape, force a plea and also avoid a trial. And she was immediately on board. Her exact words were "Can we do it, like, now?" Hardly the same as Janie sobbing that she can't eat, she can't sleep, she shouldn't have to do this and all she wants is an apology.

Jenna was obviously emotionally stronger in the aftermath than Janie. In Making a Rapist, people complained they forced the mother to testify and now suddenly in this episode, they think Benson should have forced Janie to testify too. What is wrong with Benson (i.e. the writers) reading the situation, reading the victim, and choosing different paths to justice accordingly? SVU's formula is already paint-by-numbers; I don't want identical victims, identical crimes, identical trials and identical convictions every week.

Except Jenna was unstable and in need of medication. Which Benson ignored, because she didn't read the victim in that case. What victim is so excited to see her rapist again? Jenna was literally pumped. Didn't that give Olivia pause? No, because she was after a conviction, no matter what. Oh and for the record, I was fine with Ellis getting a plea deal to spare Janie to testify. But not a plea deal which involved probation(!). How is that okay with Olivia? Because that would be the only deal the guy would accept? Is that justice? When Olivia has spent all season pushing for convictions? Even when there was no actual rape (i.e. the Hudson ep)? Is an apology enough punishment for rape? Since when?

And, in this week's episode, the way I saw it, Benson didn't read the victim, Benson was relieved her buddy's son wouldn't be getting jail time. If she had read the victim, she'd have asked the girl to come back the next day, with a clear head, to discuss this with her friends or parents or therapist, and make a definitive decision afterwards, when she's not sobbing.

Also, literally every single episode this season has been "male rapist, adult female victim", and almost all the female victims have been unsympathetic and did something to cause their plight, however indirectly. There's only the exception of the premiere, when that woman was brutalized, and one of her rapists died while the other was detained for unrelated reasons (so she got no actual justice). And even that woman was prosecuted as a terrorist (like, how's that for sympathetic?). In episode 2 (the Making a Murderer ep), the mother of the victim blames herself fully for her daughter's rape and murder, because she mistakenly identified Sean Roberts years earlier, and the episode agrees because Barba tells us "prison made him do it". In episode 3, a married mother willingly chooses to sleep with a pervert to get her son into a good college. In episode 4, the athlete chooses to become a prostitute and actively picks up her would-be rapist at a bar. In episode 5, the victim chooses to get drunk and hit on a guy at a party (shocking!) and gets raped by the garbage for her troubles.

Where's the variety?

Where's a male victim? A female perp? Where's a villainous, unrepentant rapist who gets 20 years? Where's a false accusation? A wholly innocent victim? An underage victim? A child? Pornography charges? Stalking? Something? All the episodes have been way too similar, when seen broadly.

Only the Hudson episode was different, in that it did not involve actual/legal rape, but instead of the show elaborating on the nuances of an interesting case, they had Saint Benson rallying to get an impossible (and unfair) rape conviction. At the time I found that annoying, but this week I found myself wishing she'd have used one tenth of that passion to get Ellis convicted. It's a good thing the rapist was such a sweetheart, so justice was served thanks to him.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Princess Lucky

[devious455]

The episode was fine. I've thought that Ellis will run away when Benson agreed that he could leave to say goodbye to his mother. His father blatantly asked her to drop the case and she let him go anyway. It would be more interesting to me if they keep it in the grey area. So he wouldn't confess in the end. Then we wouldn't know what actually happen. Of course nobody in their right mind would have sex on garbage bags and she was wasted when the cops arrived. But I would be more interested how the jury would decide. I don't like Barba's blind loyalty towards Benson. He should've prosecuted Patrick for that stunt with fake witness. I also don't like when our characters have any relation to the case. Benson shouldn't be on that case in the first place. 

Overall it was probably the least boring episode of the season. That doesn't says much. 

Oh and when this season started with Benson-centric episode, then there were Fin, Carisi and Rollins-centric episodes I naively expected that the fifth one will be Barba's. Heh. 

5 hours ago, sockii said:

Tucker left IAB at the end of last season to join the hostage negotiation team.

He said that he works in the Conviction Integrity Unit now. He changed jobs in the course of two episodes. You know, because consistency :) I don't like them together. Still. It goes against my beliefs that a decade of unpleasant history can be forgiven and forgotten for no apparent reason. With her job she would develop major trust issues yet she decides to trust a guy who almost gets her previous boyfriend killed. Real people don't act like that. I'm sure they are going to use his job soon. He will find an old case, question her methods, cheap drama, kiss at the end. Nothing changed. Spare me. I wish her happy life. Off-screen. With some decent man who she never hated. It's not that difficult, dear writers. 

[Easyspreestep]

Quote

Yes it is. Being in a vulnerable state doesn't give anyone a pass to take advantage of them. I hope none of the people who think this way ever find themselves in a vulnerable situation where afterwards others are looking to find reasons to blame them for whatever misfortunes befell them. (And I am drawing a distinction between things people do that can harm others, like drunk driving, and things that are done to them, like assault or robbery.)

This episode was about a female and a Male getting so drunk they both did things they didn't remember the next day.  The female couldn't remember leaving a very long voicemail to her cousin, so I'm not sure how anyone could know that she did not consent to sex.  The female passed out during intercourse, should the guy then say oh she no longer wants to have sex?  if he was sober then yes he would have but guess what he was not and the same way we expect a female to know she is to drunk to get behind the wheel of a car and drive she should also know she is to drunk to leave with a random man.  Sorry as a woman I have to take responsibility for my part in stuff.  What I don't accept is when people question a woman wardrobe for why she was rapped assaulted or if she decided to go out at night by herself then no its her fault a creep decided to rape her.  Also if the female was passed out drunk and the guy had sex with her without ever receiving consent then yes that is rape.  No you can't and shouldn't go out and get so drunk you can't remember what happen and then claim rape.  Nope not for me, if you can't remember what happened and there is no other evidence then there you will have reasonable doubt.  

[CelticBlackCat]

6 hours ago, sockii said:

Tucker left IAB at the end of last season to join the hostage negotiation team.

As far as the age thing, we don't know what Tucker's age is supposed to be but the actor who plays him is 56; Benson is supposed to be 48 (Mariska is 52), that's hardly a noteworthy age difference.

Thanks for the info.  I'm so uninterested in Tucker I missed his job changes as described here and below.  As for age difference, I guess it's the gray hair against beautiful Mariska who doesn't seem to age much, not the chronological years.

23 minutes ago, Easyspreestep said:

This episode was about a female and a Male getting so drunk they both did things they didn't remember the next day.  The female couldn't remember leaving a very long voicemail to her cousin, so I'm not sure how anyone could know that she did not consent to sex.  The female passed out during intercourse, should the guy then say oh she no longer wants to have sex?  if he was sober then yes he would have but guess what he was not and the same way we expect a female to know she is to drunk to get behind the wheel of a car and drive she should also know she is to drunk to leave with a random man.  Sorry as a woman I have to take responsibility for my part in stuff.  What I don't accept is when people question a woman wardrobe for why she was rapped assaulted or if she decided to go out at night by herself then no its her fault a creep decided to rape her.  Also if the female was passed out drunk and the guy had sex with her without ever receiving consent then yes that is rape.  No you can't and shouldn't go out and get so drunk you can't remember what happen and then claim rape.  Nope not for me, if you can't remember what happened and there is no other evidence then there you will have reasonable doubt.  

Exactly!

[Princess Lucky]

One of the writers of this episode retweeted this (and the original tweet was from another SVU writer):

Quote

She was incapable of consent. The NEW YORK STATE LAW says that's rape -- not SVU, or SJW or the Internet. #BensonOnHerSide

And also this:

Quote

#Consent - clear, mutual, respectful, ongoing. #BensonOnHerSide

If that's how they feel, clearly they failed to convey it with the actual writing. They took a relatively clear-cut real case and made the victim seem more complicit than the real victim and the rapist seem more sympathetic than the real rapist. Of all the ways to add ambiguity to the Brock Turner case, this was their choice.

To which I say, 'Adam Rodriguez is over on Criminal Minds being cute with his adorable dog, so bye.'

[WineCheeseChocolat]

Quote

 I don't like them together. Still. It goes against my beliefs that a decade of unpleasant history can be forgiven and forgotten for no apparent reason. With her job she would develop major trust issues yet she decides to trust a guy who almost gets her previous boyfriend killed. Real people don't act like that. I'm sure they are going to use his job soon. He will find an old case, question her methods, cheap drama, kiss at the end. Nothing changed.

Glad I'm not the only one. Too much bad blood, and nothing was ever dealt with. They were flirting, then they were banging, then they were dating and nothing about what brought them together - what attracted them to each other. Now contrast with Barson (still a shipper) and if they got together, it would be super obvious why. They have the foundation. The Tuckerson foundation was never established.

Plus, I don't get the appeal of Tucker. I don't kind him good-looking, witty or particularly smart. His only redeeming quality is that he's been not such an asshole in the past three years. And whoever pointed it out - the actors don't look like there's only an age gap of four years. He looks remarkably older than her.

[Gigglepuff]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Tucker, but I don't think their age difference, or however old/young they appear to be, matters. She's nearly 50, and can date whomever she wants. It's not like she's some wide-eyed young girl dating a man decades older. I have issues with Tuckson for reasons other than his age or looks. Also, part of the reason why she looks so much younger than him, is that it's clear Mariska has had work done to her face and Bobby hasn't.  Oh, I know I'm gonna get flamed for saying that. I realize that there are a lot of Mariska worshipers here who would argue against that, but it's the truth. Take a look at her face from previous seasons. She had more lines and brow furrows 6-10 years ago than she does now. I'm not saying she isn't a beautiful woman, she definitely is, but she's had some help along the way, and it is her prerogative to do so. And, if you want to start basing the appeal of a person based on such things as how old or young someone looks, then I suppose one could be just as shallow and say that Benson is too tall for Barba. 

Edited October 28, 2016 by Gigglepuff

[skittl3862]

7 hours ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

Yes it is. Being in a vulnerable state doesn't give anyone a pass to take advantage of them. I hope none of the people who think this way ever find themselves in a vulnerable situation where afterwards others are looking to find reasons to blame them for whatever misfortunes befell them. (And I am drawing a distinction between things people do that can harm others, like drunk driving, and things that are done to them, like assault or robbery.)

I didn't say being in a vulnerable state gives someone a pass to take advantage of her. The fault still lies with the perpetrator for committing a crime against her. But since you made that distinction, let's say that instead of getting raped, Janie got black-out drunk, passed out on the subway and her purse was stolen. She's a victim of a crime. Being drunk and passed out isn't an invitation to steal anymore than it is an invitation to rape. But would you consider her being passed-out drunk to be a contributing factor in the theft? Would she have been as likely a target if she were awake and alert? It doesn't make it her fault for being robbed, but it did make her more vulnerable to be robbed. There's a difference between blaming a victim for a crime committed against them, and acknowledging that we still live in an imperfect world where women are left with the burden of being cautious so they make it home safely every night. If your friend or daughter went out, got so drunk she blacked out and stumbled home alone, would you tell her that worries you? Would you offer to pick her up next time? Would you watch her back a little more closely while you're out together just in case? Or do you throw caution to the wind because who cares, even if anything happens to her, it's not her fault?

 

6 hours ago, Princess Lucky said:

Also, literally every single episode this season has been "male rapist, adult female victim", and almost all the female victims have been unsympathetic and did something to cause their plight, however indirectly.

...

Where's the variety?

Where's a male victim? A female perp? Where's a villainous, unrepentant rapist who gets 20 years? Where's a false accusation? A wholly innocent victim? An underage victim? A child? Pornography charges? Stalking? Something? All the episodes have been way too similar, when seen broadly.

The last adult male rape victim I can remember them investigating was Carisi's brother-in-law in Parole Violations Season 16. Female perp. Her sentence was far weaker than Ellis's plea deal, for the record. The last child (not teen) investigated was Season 15. This isn't a new trend for season 18. I counted back 20+ episodes before I found one where the victim wasn't a teen or adult female. And I can't imagine fan reaction to a false accusation these days if they thought Making a Rapist was too much victim blaming.

Edited October 28, 2016 by skittl3862

[halkatla]

This case was so stupid. It should never have been prosecuted, it just cheapens what rape really is.

Edited October 28, 2016 by halkatla

[Joimiaroxeu]

Quote

Or do you throw caution to the wind because who cares, even if anything happens to her, it's not her fault?

Of course not. I was specifically referring to the notion that being drunk or high or unconscious whatever takes away your right to have agency over your own body (and your possessions).

Quote

If your friend or daughter went out, got so drunk she blacked out and stumbled home alone, would you tell her that worries you? Would you offer to pick her up next time? Would you watch her back a little more closely while you're out together just in case?

Perhaps but I certainly wouldn't blame her if she happened to get violated in some way while she was in that condtion. It makes no sense to me that being drunk or in some other way weakened or incapacitated--regardless of how you got that way--gives other people license to harm you. But apparently there are some number of people greater than zero who think it does.

Except under some bizarre circumstances or cases of self-defense, I doubt anyone is forced to assault another person. It's a choice they make and one that is still a crime in this country. Seems to me they could choose not to do that instead of later trying to find ways to defer the blame to the person they assaulted. And again, I don't think episodes like this one help to clarify the issue and may instead be further muddying the waters.

[WendyCR72]

Back to the actual episode, please. This is getting out of bounds again and a bit heated. I don't think anyone wants warnings and I don't want to have to give any. So let's stay on topic and we'll all be fine.

[The Wild Sow]

23 hours ago, devious455 said:

He said that he works in the Conviction Integrity Unit now. He changed jobs in the course of two episodes. You know, because consistency :)

What, with Hayes Morrison??

Oops, that's another network!

[gesundheit]

I think it's worth pointing out that in this particular episode, there was a witness to him having sex with an unconscious woman. This isn't someone who woke up, couldn't remember anything, realized there was sex, and accused someone of rape. A passerby accused him of rape because he said he saw it happening. And how often does rape actually have a witness instead of it just being a he said/she said kind of thing? It's pretty rare and that seemed to be a driving force of much of the episode, and then kind of dissipated by the end. Also a rare component of the real-life case it was based on, which is part of why there was such a public outcry, since the witnesses offered a different level of certainty than the usual gray area of "how drunk/where is the consent line?"

 

On the upside, I think the episode did a good job of conveying how haunting it was for the victim, that she couldn't remember what happened but a witness saw it, and she had to imagine the horror of it.

[wknt3]

I'm wondering if the problem here as far as the message not getting across and making the perp too sympathetic is Anthony Edwards. They've done plenty of shows about the difficulties of getting convictions and judges being too lenient in these types of cases before but the time that would usually be spent on discussing how they have to reluctantly accept favorable plea bargains or light sentences was devoted to the much hyped ER reunion. And I'm not sure that Edwards would be believable as a total villain from the get go so they didn't want to make his son obviously a complete bastard like his real life inspiration.

[CelticBlackCat]

On 10/29/2016 at 10:17 AM, gesundheit said:

I think it's worth pointing out that in this particular episode, there was a witness to him having sex with an unconscious woman. This isn't someone who woke up, couldn't remember anything, realized there was sex, and accused someone of rape. A passerby accused him of rape because he said he saw it happening. And how often does rape actually have a witness instead of it just being a he said/she said kind of thing? It's pretty rare and that seemed to be a driving force of much of the episode, and then kind of dissipated by the end. Also a rare component of the real-life case it was based on, which is part of why there was such a public outcry, since the witnesses offered a different level of certainty than the usual gray area of "how drunk/where is the consent line?"

 

On the upside, I think the episode did a good job of conveying how haunting it was for the victim, that she couldn't remember what happened but a witness saw it, and she had to imagine the horror of it.

Which hopefully would bring the young woman to the realization that she needs to get her drinking under control so that she doesn't lose control of her day or night.

As to the witness, however well-intentioned he was by calling the police, I would have remembered what the defense attorney said about him not going over to check on her, take a pulse, call an ambulance, etc.  The Englishman witness (and make no mistake I do love me some Englishmen [I married one]) did not get that close to Janie.  It still would have been grey-area territory for me if I had been on that jury.  This is not a referendum on how a passed-out person is not fair game for crimes to be committed against them.  Of course I don't believe that.  Remember, the young man and woman were at a party, she knew of him from school, and she was kissing and hanging on him so he, in his less than sober state, thought he was going to get lucky.  If/when she indeed passed out or just blacked out and was still conscious, I don't think he was monitoring her agreement to the proceedings throughout the sex act.  That is where the gray area is for me.  As a true rape victim myself, no alcohol or drugs involved on my part, when I was a teenager, I do know the difference between a real rape and a night out gone wrong/date rape/he said-she said situations.

Edited October 30, 2016 by CelticBlackCat

[CelticBlackCat]

23 minutes ago, wknt3 said:

I'm wondering if the problem here as far as the message not getting across and making the perp too sympathetic is Anthony Edwards. They've done plenty of shows about the difficulties of getting convictions and judges being too lenient in these types of cases before but the time that would usually be spent on discussing how they have to reluctantly accept favorable plea bargains or light sentences was devoted to the much hyped ER reunion. And I'm not sure that Edwards would be believable as a total villain from the get go so they didn't want to make his son obviously a complete bastard like his real life inspiration.

I didn't get the Brock Turner connection until the judge passed down the rather light sentence for a rape case.

[CelticBlackCat]

On 10/28/2016 at 1:30 PM, Gigglepuff said:

Yeah, I'm not a fan of Tucker, but I don't think their age difference, or however old/young they appear to be, matters. She's nearly 50, and can date whomever she wants. It's not like she's some wide-eyed young girl dating a man decades older. I have issues with Tuckson for reasons other than his age or looks. Also, part of the reason why she looks so much younger than him, is that it's clear Mariska has had work done to her face and Bobby hasn't.  Oh, I know I'm gonna get flamed for saying that. I realize that there are a lot of Mariska worshipers here who would argue against that, but it's the truth. Take a look at her face from previous seasons. She had more lines and brow furrows 6-10 years ago than she does now. I'm not saying she isn't a beautiful woman, she definitely is, but she's had some help along the way, and it is her prerogative to do so. And, if you want to start basing the appeal of a person based on such things as how old or young someone looks, then I suppose one could be just as shallow and say that Benson is too tall for Barba. 

I didn't imply that Benson is too young to date Tucker.  It's just that they don't look like a glamourous couple together and it doesn't look like Tucker is ready to be a daddy for the next at least 18 years to Noah.  I was so hoping that Rollins and her baby daddy (Donal Logue) would get together last season, so I'm not upset about chrono age differences.

Edited October 29, 2016 by CelticBlackCat
Added a thought.

[Kel Varnsen]

I didn't really get what the big deal was with Anthony Edwards having to lie to cover for Liv when she was a rookie. She arrested a drug dealer and he lied to say that she stole a bunch of drugs and or money that were in his house. But wouldn't every drug dealer say the same thing in that situation? And would IA really care to the point where her career would be at risk with no other evidence?

[CelticBlackCat]

Being a rookie, and a female cop in what used to be a man's world, could have jammed her up before IA.

[HeySandyStrange]

36 minutes ago, CelticBlackCat said:

I do know the difference between a real rape and a night out gone wrong/date rape/he said-she said situations.

I was under the impression that rape and date rape were both crimes, correct me if I'm wrong.

As for the episode...I have no experience with heavy drinking, but I'd think someone would have to be pretty far gone to actually agree to having sex on a pile of garbage in the middle of fairly populated area. Therefore I tend to believe the victim really was passed out, along with the fact that in the pictures and according to the witness she wasn't moving. I'd think getting caught having sex in the open would give the conscious  person the impetus to get up and get the hell out of dodge. 

[Kel Varnsen]

On ‎2016‎-‎10‎-‎28 at 3:38 PM, Princess Lucky said:

One of the writers of this episode retweeted this (and the original tweet was from another SVU writer):

And also this:

If that's how they feel, clearly they failed to convey it with the actual writing. They took a relatively clear-cut real case and made the victim seem more complicit than the real victim and the rapist seem more sympathetic than the real rapist. Of all the ways to add ambiguity to the Brock Turner case, this was their choice.

To which I say, 'Adam Rodriguez is over on Criminal Minds being cute with his adorable dog, so bye.'

Interesting that the writers are posting that. Makes me wonder if being drunk makes someone incapable of consent, does it also make them incapable of asking the other person they are with for their consent or accepting their answer.  And it also makes me wonder if they gave that Ellis guy a breathalyser?

[fivestone]

6 hours ago, HeySandyStrange said:

I was under the impression that rape and date rape were both crimes, correct me if I'm wrong.

As for the episode...I have no experience with heavy drinking, but I'd think someone would have to be pretty far gone to actually agree to having sex on a pile of garbage in the middle of fairly populated area. Therefore I tend to believe the victim really was passed out, along with the fact that in the pictures and according to the witness she wasn't moving. I'd think getting caught having sex in the open would give the conscious  person the impetus to get up and get the hell out of dodge. 

See, the garbage bag situation made sense to me. Not that I'm proud of it, but I've definitely been drunk and fooling around with other drunk/high people in random places, because, you know, alcohol and/or drugs. One place that stands out is a random laundry-folding table in the laundry room of an apartment building. Any other resident could have walked in at any time (and for all I know, they did!) Don't know what we were thinking, but I guess since we were 19 and completely wasted, we weren't really thinking. We had been at a party and wanted some place more "private". So to me, the pile of garbage wasn't very far removed from that... I can see how in a drunken state with a guy I liked, the fact that we were gettin' busy on some garbage bags would have been the last thing on my mind. If anything, hey, maybe the bags would've provided more cushioning than that stupid table. 

I admit, though, I was really confused the whole episode. She had been drinking, and he had been drinking. So when two people who have had a lot of alcohol get together, then where do you draw the line? Did they both rape each other? How is one drunk person supposed to notice if the other drunk person is no longer "with it"? I mean, if they're on top, it's easy to figure out, but in a creative position, someone honestly might not notice.

I felt like this episode has just muddied the waters even more and raised more questions than it answered. I've had drunken hookups I later totally regretted (although there was one guy who said "forget it" when I was almost passed out, and took me over to my friends where everything got fuzzy, which I do appreciate, but before that I had totally consented), but I never felt taken advantage of or anything, and I didn't hear my hookup buddies expressing that they felt taken advantage of either, because we had both been drinking/drugging/whatever. To me that, all that was a completely different story from when I was forcibly raped by an acquaintance in a stairwell. Like a difference between day and night. I fought him off, told him to stop, but he physically overpowered me and later stalked me and threatened me with bodily harm if I told. He told me he would rape me again and hurt me - so he had known EXACTLY what he had done. To me, that's different than if I had passed out with a guy I had started having sex with when we were both drunk and he didn't notice. I just feel like intent needs to be part of the equation in some of these grey areas, but I guess the law didn't allow for that at all? I mean, that's a lot of what the dad (Anthony Edwards' character) was saying in his clumsy way throughout the whole episode. Or maybe that's why the judge gave such a relatively light sentence in the episode, because the judge felt like the act of sex was not carried out with the intent of overpowering a person unable to consent?

If a stone cold sober person sexually assaults another person by force, coersion, manipulation, or engages in sexual behaviour with someone who is unconscious, pass-out drunk, or mentally incompetent... absolutely, throw their arse in jail and put them on the sex offender registry. But lots of alcohol on both sides just blurs the issue in my head. Don't get me wrong, I respect that the show is trying to address situations current to our times, and not just perpetuate the myth that a "real" rape is only one that occurs when a stranger jumps out of the bushes and attacks an unsuspecting woman, but episodes like this really don't clear up anything for me. The situation didn't come across to me as a rape, even when the guy confessed in the end. It felt like something he was doing to save his dad's career. If the letter of the law is going to be "drunk = no consent", then two drunk people need to both be charged or cancel each other out. If I had been on that jury in the episode I wouldn't have known what to think at ALL. I mean, I wouldn't have even bought the confession. 'He said she said' is one thing, but when copious amounts of alcohol are present on both sides, both sides probably need to have some alcohol and drug counselling and keep it moving,

But maybe I'm seeing it wrong. I am not an ultimate authority here and I believe there's always something to learn in life. Maybe someone can kind of break it down for me within the context of the episode or else take it to one of those side chat threads in this SVU forum.

Edited October 30, 2016 by fivestone

[Kel Varnsen]

15 hours ago, fivestone said:

 If the letter of the law is going to be "drunk = no consent", then two drunk people need to both be charged or cancel each other out. If I had been on that jury in the episode I wouldn't have known what to think at all.

Looking back to a previous episode this season, what would happen if a person was pretending to be someone else in order to have sex with someone, but then when the time came to actually have sex that person was too drunk to consent. In that case who is the rapist.  

Hell what if two people both get super drunk and have sex while both pretending to be other people. If that was the case i assume Olivia's head would explode.

[CelticBlackCat]

16 hours ago, fivestone said:

See, the garbage bag situation made sense to me. Not that I'm proud of it, but I've definitely been drunk and fooling around with other drunk/high people in random places, because, you know, alcohol and/or drugs. One place that stands out is a random laundry-folding table in the laundry room of an apartment building. Any other resident could have walked in at any time (and for all I know, they did!) Don't know what we were thinking, but I guess since we were 19 and completely wasted, we weren't really thinking. We had been at a party and wanted some place more "private". So to me, the pile of garbage wasn't very far removed from that... I can see how in a drunken state with a guy I liked, the fact that we were gettin' busy on some garbage bags would have been the last thing on my mind. If anything, hey, maybe the bags would've provided more cushioning than that stupid table. 

I admit, though, I was really confused the whole episode. She had been drinking, and he had been drinking. So when two people who have had a lot of alcohol get together, then where do you draw the line? Did they both rape each other? How is one drunk person supposed to notice if the other drunk person is no longer "with it"? I mean, if they're on top, it's easy to figure out, but in a creative position, someone honestly might not notice.

I felt like this episode has just muddied the waters even more and raised more questions than it answered. I've had drunken hookups I later totally regretted (although there was one guy who said "forget it" when I was almost passed out, and took me over to my friends where everything got fuzzy, which I do appreciate, but before that I had totally consented), but I never felt taken advantage of or anything, and I didn't hear my hookup buddies expressing that they felt taken advantage of either, because we had both been drinking/drugging/whatever. To me that, all that was a completely different story from when I was forcibly raped by an acquaintance in a stairwell. Like a difference between day and night. I fought him off, told him to stop, but he physically overpowered me and later stalked me and threatened me with bodily harm if I told. He told me he would rape me again and hurt me - so he had known EXACTLY what he had done. To me, that's different than if I had passed out with a guy I had started having sex with when we were both drunk and he didn't notice. I just feel like intent needs to be part of the equation in some of these grey areas, but I guess the law didn't allow for that at all? I mean, that's a lot of what the dad (Anthony Edwards' character) was saying in his clumsy way throughout the whole episode. Or maybe that's why the judge gave such a relatively light sentence in the episode, because the judge felt like the act of sex was not carried out with the intent of overpowering a person unable to consent?

If a stone cold sober person sexually assaults another person by force, coersion, manipulation, or engages in sexual behaviour with someone who is unconscious, pass-out drunk, or mentally incompetent... absolutely, throw their arse in jail and put them on the sex offender registry. But lots of alcohol on both sides just blurs the issue in my head. Don't get me wrong, I respect that the show is trying to address situations current to our times, and not just perpetuate the myth that a "real" rape is only one that occurs when a stranger jumps out of the bushes and attacks an unsuspecting woman, but episodes like this really don't clear up anything for me. The situation didn't come across to me as a rape, even when the guy confessed in the end. It felt like something he was doing to save his dad's career. If the letter of the law is going to be "drunk = no consent", then two drunk people need to both be charged or cancel each other out. If I had been on that jury in the episode I wouldn't have known what to think at ALL. I mean, I wouldn't have even bought the confession. 'He said she said' is one thing, but when copious amounts of alcohol are present on both sides, both sides probably need to have some alcohol and drug counselling and keep it moving,

But maybe I'm seeing it wrong. I am not an ultimate authority here and I believe there's always something to learn in life. Maybe someone can kind of break it down for me within the context of the episode or else take it to one of those side chat threads in this SVU forum.

Thank you for having the guts to share your stories (even though we're anonymous).  In this episode, I can't remember if the supposed Brock Turner-like guy was charged with first degree rape.  As a juror, one would not know about prior plea deal offers.  The jury here didn't know about the defendant's father's witness tampering, until the "confession".  I too think he did it to save his father's career.  That kid was probably just as confused as the rest of us.

Also, I would like to point out that Janie, however stumbling she may have been, walked outside of the party of her own free will (it was her idea to go out for some fresh air) and volition.  Ellis did not carry or drag her out, and there was no evidence that he rendered her unconcious with a violent act.  I do not believe Ellis went to the party to scope out potyential rape victims.

58 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Looking back to a previous episode this season, what would happen if a person was pretending to be someone else in order to have sex with someone, but then when the time came to actually have sex that person was too drunk to consent. In that case who is the rapist.  

Hell what if two people both get super drunk and have sex while both pretending to be other people. If that was the case i assume Olivia's head would explode.

She would try to get them both prosecuted for simultaneous rape!

[CelticBlackCat]

Bottom line, if I had been a juror in this episode's case, the grey areas would have led me to vote not guilty.  I don't think Ellis was a real criminal whose young life should be destroyed by prison and sex offender registry.  To me, this was a lesson learned moment for both defendant and victim.  Save the prison cells for the real rapists.  I am not going to comment further on this thread.

Edited October 30, 2016 by CelticBlackCat
I am not commenting further on this episode's thread.

[TigerLynx]

I don't understand why they are doing yet another Olivia dates a guy, but imagines all sorts or problems are going to come along ruin things SL.  At this point, it's just boring and stupid.

I also don't understand why the writers took a straight forward real life case, and tried to muddy it up with this SL.

The law is clear - a drunk person or any person who is incapacitated can not consent to sex - therefore it is rape.  It is the same as the statutory rape laws.  A person under a certain age can not consent to sex, therefore, it is rape.  It should be noted that statutory rape laws have been revised.  At one time, they stated a man over a certain age having sex with a girl under a certain age was guilty of rape.  The girl could not give consent because she was not old enough.  The statutory rape laws now say a person (male or female) over a certain age can not have sex with a person (male or female) under a certain age.  If they do, it is rape.

The drunk/incapacitated laws were written because rapists were claiming they had obtained consent from the victim, but the victim had forgotten they had given consent.  The same with the statutory rape laws.  Rapists were claiming they had obtained consent from their younger victims, but the victims were now claiming rape because they didn't want their parents to know the truth.

[shapeshifter]

@fivestone, back in the 70s, when I was in my late teens and early 20s, my experiences were similar to yours except if I was really too drunk for consent, I was also vomiting, which is a surprisingly good turn off for young men. And if I was too high, the guys I was with must have also been high and seeking enlightenment, because they stopped before much happened. And I managed to escape from two potentially "real" rape (and possibly murder) situations.
With all that said, I felt like there should be more leeway in convicting a young person — say, under 25 since current psychology studies indicate a person below that age does not have the brain development to make wise decisions — specifically give probation before putting the person on the sex offenders list for life. But if it happens again, regardless of age, put the person on the list — which also means, they should initially have to pick up trash for a month of Sundays (so the fact that the law was violated and there are consequences) is made clear to even a youthful brain.
Anyway, I would like to think that the episode's confusing plots and outcomes were to stimulate conversation among viewers about gray areas.

Edited November 1, 2016 by shapeshifter

[Monkeybball]

I think someone was right earlier when they pointed out that the Anthony Edwards factor was a real problem with this episode. Too many things going on. When dealing with the gray issue at the core of this episode, adding in the dad's questionable techniques both past and present really did nothing to bring the issue home, other than help elicit the kid'/ ultimate confession. Otherwise, I think they just introduced another sub issue into an episode that really didn't need one.

[shapeshifter]

1 minute ago, Monkeybball said:

I think someone was right earlier when they pointed out that the Anthony Edwards factor was a real problem with this episode. Too many things going on. When dealing with the gray issue at the core of this episode, adding in the dad's questionable techniques both past and present really did nothing to bring the issue home, other than help elicit the kid'/ ultimate confession. Otherwise, I think they just introduced another sub issue into an episode that really didn't need one.

I think it adds more gray, even though the way they squeezed it in bugs.

[Princess Lucky]

Stanford Sexual Assault Case Survivor Emily Doe Speaks Out

Quote

If you think the answer is that women need to be more sober, more civil, more upright, that girls must be better at exercising fear, must wear more layers with eyes open wider, we will go nowhere. When Judge Aaron Persky mutes the word justice, when Brock Turner serves one month for every felony, we go nowhere. When we all make it a priority to avoid harming or violating another human being, and when we hold accountable those who do, when the campaign to recall this judge declares that survivors deserve better, then we are going somewhere.

I wish the writers of SVU were half as eloquent as this young woman. Reading her essay makes this episode feel even more unnecessary. She said it all. With this, but also her statement before the sentencing. Forget gray and blurred lines. What's the point of focusing on the plight of the rapist and his family? What's the point of giving a victim 5 seconds of screentime, a couple of choppy sentences, when the real speech was so majestic?

Rape isn't gray.

Reality has harsher than SVU, because Brock Turner was punished very lightly, but reality was also better, because the victim had a voice. A powerful voice, which the show chose to take away from her. Because no one is talking about that piece of trash Brock Turner, but Joe Biden is sending Emily Doe letters of support. She is a warrior. That's reality.

Just read that essay, and her statement, if you haven't.

[wknt3]

12 hours ago, Monkeybball said:

I think someone was right earlier when they pointed out that the Anthony Edwards factor was a real problem with this episode. Too many things going on. When dealing with the gray issue at the core of this episode, adding in the dad's questionable techniques both past and present really did nothing to bring the issue home, other than help elicit the kid'/ ultimate confession. Otherwise, I think they just introduced another sub issue into an episode that really didn't need one.

That was me. And I don't think it was an inherently gray issue at the core, but a cut and dried black and white one and the gray was added because of the likable guest star and the need to have a big tearful confrontation. My guess is that without Anthony Edwards we don't have the informant, we don't see so much of the perp's family and what we do see is quite different (rich d-bag investment banker blows off his cop father as he's now too good for the outer boroughs is my guess) and Olivia being pissed off and moralizing instead and not acknowledging any nuance or showing any sympathy (with reason for a change!) And that's if they decide to go with the Liv has a connection to the perp's cop father angle at all. My bet is they wouldn't and they would have spent the whole episode making it clear that this is a black and white, right and wrong, cut and dried issue even if the victim is drunk and the perp is smart and attractive.

[Kel Varnsen]

On 30/10/2016 at 3:06 PM, CelticBlackCat said:

  I don't think Ellis was a real criminal whose young life should be destroyed by prison and sex offender registry.  To me, this was a lesson learned moment for both defendant and victim.  Save the prison cells for the real rapists.  

I have noticed that this season more than usual Olivia has been threatening peopke with the sex offender registry. Considering how stupid sex offender registries are i am trying to remember if the show has done an episode that is either for or against such registries.

[wknt3]

13 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I have noticed that this season more than usual Olivia has been threatening peopke with the sex offender registry. Considering how stupid sex offender registries are i am trying to remember if the show has done an episode that is either for or against such registries.

The most recent episode dealing with registries was "Sheltered Outcasts" from last season IIRC which pointed out some of the problems. As far as taking a stand there was "Bullseye" from the late Stabler years which was pretty critical of the registry being easily publicly accessible and the way that all the incentives and laws are on the side of putting every offender who can possibly be classified on the list regardless of if they really belong there. There have been others as well as a lot of mentions as both a useful tool and being deeply flawed. In general the show seems to be opposed to the current system, but not necessarily the concept.

[tobeyoungagain]

N/A

Edited November 4, 2016 by tobeyoungagain
removing because off topic