Poor writing, it was way too obvious - Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (1999) Discussion

[–] FangsMcWolf 8 years ago

I believe that the similarities were with the title and the overall idea, but from there was its own story. It's how they do things when they borrow an idea from reality and make it into an episode. Like the episode Starved (2005) which had a reference to the real life case of Terri Schiavo. Keep in mind that the references to reality might have limits that can't be exceeded for legal reasons. So vague references to them is enough to let you know where an idea came from, but that's it.

reply

[–] Arnold25 8 years ago

Not true, because many, many episodes have been ripped from the headlines and it was almost a carbon copy of the real case. Like the episode based on Rhianna and Chris Brown. Two singers, and the guy hits the girl. Or Paula Deen. A celebrity chef with a history of using racial slurs. Or Beyoncé's sister and Jay Z. Or the football player who punched his wife.

reply

[–] Xeliou66 8 years ago

The football player who punched his wife was one of the worst episodes ever. It was exactly the same as Ray Rice. Exactly. It felt like a parody, not a regular episode. I usually like the ripped from the headlines episodes, because they take a real life story and twist a few key facts around and it is a good episode, the franchise has done that since the start.

reply

[–] chelseagirl74 8 years ago

Paula Deen didn't kill a young kid during a attempted (in the character's mind) rape. SO that one doesn't really count.

reply

[–] Arnold25 8 years ago

Celebrity chef who has a history of using racial slurs. Yes it does.

reply

[–] chelseagirl74 8 years ago

Not true, because many, many episodes have been ripped from the headlines and it was almost a carbon copy of the real case

A celebrity chef with a history of using racial slurs.

If the episode was just about a celebrity chef who used a racial slur, then yes, but it wasn't. You do know what "carbon copy" means I assume?

They took the idea of a celebrity chef and nothing more, she wasn't on trial for using a racial slur during her murder trial it came out that she had racist tendencies and had used racial slurs in the past and built an entirely different story around it, a possible rape, a murder, mistaken identity, an anonymous rapist, a hate crime etc.....ergo not carbon copy. So once again...no it doesn't

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Xeliou66 8 years ago

I thought this was a really good episode. Yeah we know Fin didn't plant evidence but someone else could've planted it there beforehand to frame Sean, and I was unsure of whether he did it or not until the final segment. I thought that the courtroom scenes were great and both Barba and Buchanan put on strong cases, I always love courtroom episodes with Buchanan and Barba.

I also liked having Fin take center stage in an episode, he has been underused for too long and he is one of the best characters on SVU

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Xeliou66 8 years ago

You didn't even watch the episode fat ass, so shut up and quit bitching. You don't know what the show is like since you quit watching when Brian Cassidy left, you are pathetic with your whining. You haven't watched in 3 years and yet you act like you know everything about the show, so either you watch it still or you spend all your time reading about a show you don't watch.

You are a pathetic, worthless troll. Lots of people still like the show even if they don't like parts of it. You are a just a miserable old 400 pound wheelchair bound virgin

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eatasnickers 8 years ago

That would be true if they were going for the "did he or didn't he" thing, but I don't think that was their main focus. They were trying to convey the message that IF the guy from MAM did it, maybe it wasn't his fault because sitting in prison innocently turned him into a murderer. Same with the episode's rapist. They were more so portraying and mimicking that hypothetical aspect rather than the story as a whole.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] FangsMcWolf 8 years ago

cardinal42 (Fri Sep 30 2016 09:42:45)
Being in prison can't make someone a murderer. That's ridiculous.

This comment that contradicts what has already been proven, coming from a troll no less.

It's been proven time and again that being in prison can and very likely will change a person, for the worse. It doesn't change everyone, as some people are strong enough (mentally/emotionally) to withstand the challenges faced in there, so when they are released, they are able to continue on with life without committing another crime. However, that's the exception, not the rule.

reply

[–] Arnold25 8 years ago

Doesn't mean the rapist and murderer should get a very light sentence like you wanted.

reply

[–] FangsMcWolf 8 years ago

When you consider the psychological perspective of things, giving him a lighter sentence (actually a tough sentence, with credit for time already served), it can show kindness and that can help in encouraging the person to want to strive to be better, rather than letting the accumulated demons win over. Think on what has been learned about bullying, where a bully at school likely has an abusive relative at home. While that abuse might be seen as discipline by the person dishing it out, it's really doing more harm than good. Same with enforcement of the law. A harsher punishment will get the person off the streets, but when they were wronged before, it doesn't give them a reason to be a better person. If they're going to end up behind bars no matter what, then may as well do something to validate the reason for being there, right? But give them the message that they will serve time for doing something bad, with some of that time considered to be already 'paid' because of a previous mistake, and it's telling the person that they have a better chance of remaining free (and not being wrongly jailed again) if they don't break any laws.

Mind you, with that 'lighter' sentence, there should be therapy included to help him come to terms with what happened to him and to help him try to become the law abiding person he was before. Not just a simple "okay you served your time, now get the hell out of here."

reply

[–] Arnold25 8 years ago

He raped a girl, hit her, burned her, and killed her. A teenager. Fifteen years was a gift for him. He was young enough that he could still get out in 15 years and have a lot of years left. What he went through was horrible. Doesn't mean he should get light sentence of 5 years for MURDERING a girl. Normally he'd get life with no parole. Instead he got just 15. An extremely good offer.

reply

[–] FangsMcWolf 8 years ago

Arnold25 (Fri Sep 30 2016 12:24:42)
He raped a girl, hit her, burned her, and killed her. A teenager. Fifteen years was a gift for him. He was young enough that he could still get out in 15 years and have a lot of years left. What he went through was horrible. Doesn't mean he should get light sentence of 5 years for MURDERING a girl. Normally he'd get life with no parole. Instead he got just 15. An extremely good offer.

It's not 15 years, it's 31 years. He's already done 16 for a crime he didn't commit, now another 15 for one that he did commit as a result of being 'infect' with bad values during those 16 years that he shouldn't have been serving to begin with. Let's say he was 20 when he first went in and when finally released, doesn't break any more laws and remains free for the rest of his life. He'll be 51, which means the likelihood of starting a family is very little. Let's also say, for arguments sake, that he would have committed the same crime even if he hadn't been wrongly imprisoned. He would have had 16 years (up to age 36) to have started a family of some sort, even if it was a kid with a girlfriend or even from a fling. Then after serving 15 years, he'd at least have a kid he could try to make amends with for not being there. Instead, he'll be more or less alone in the world, with little chance of having kids and a family of his own. Even if he did manage to have a kid, he'd still be losing out because he may not be healthy enough to do things with his kid, like fishing or amusement parks, etc.

When you get down to it, prison is supposed to not only be able protecting the public, it's supposed to be able rehabilitating the offenders. Since he wasn't an offender to begin with until he was in there by mistake, try to help rehabilitate him and get him back out of there as a way to try to make things right. I'm not saying to kiss his azz or to let him off completely by any means, just to take the unique circumstances into consideration and do what would serve the interests of both the public and him.

reply

[–] Arnold25 8 years ago

And it sucks he was wrongfully imprisoned. That's why he was going to get 30 million dollars. But then he brutally murdered a young girl. And he deserves more than 5 years. If you want to count his 16 years in prison as part of his sentence, then 15 more years is actually even more fair. Because for rape and murder if he didn't get life, he'd get 30 years at least. Since he served 16 years already, he can serve 15, or just under, more years, and that would equal the sentence he'd have gotten. Perfectly fair and using his time already served as part of his sentence.

And your argument would have more merit if Sean had used it as his defense. But guess what? He didn't. He lied repeatedly until forced to make a confession. He would even have been willing to let the fiance or Charlie go to prison for the crime instead. If he had plead not guilty because of insanity, and used the argument that prison made him what he is now, he might have gotten the sentence you wanted. Maybe even serve time in a psych ward instead. But he didn't. He lied and lied and lied.

You know who it's a fact will never have kids or a life? The girl he killed. You say Sean has very little chance of starting a family? The girl he killed has zero chance. Because he killed her. She'll never take her kids to an amusement park. She'll never take her kids fishing. Because she's dead and will never have them. He can get out and at least be alive in 15 years. Guess where she'll be in 15 years? Still dead. Her mother will never have grandkids. She'll be completely alone forever.

Have some sympathy for the innocent girl too.

reply

[–] FangsMcWolf 8 years ago

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. A miscarriage of justice lead to the incident, and instead of looking to try to somehow make things right on some level, you just want blood. Since you want "an eye for an eye" so to speak, since he was robbed of a good part of his young adulthood, someone else lost their adulthood. There, fair is fair.

But like I said, let's just agree to disagree on this one.

reply

[–] Arnold25 8 years ago

You really are dumb, or a liar. Where did I say I want blood? Where did I say he should die or get life in prison? I've said the 15 year deal is fair. Much more fair than a light 5 year sentence. I'm taking what he went through into consideration. That's why 15 years is fair.

You just don't care at all about the young woman who lost her life completely. And that reply proves it.

You only want to agree to disagree because you've been proven wrong. You don't mention anything about how he didn't use your defense and instead lied and was willing to let someone else to prison wrongly. You ignore how while he lost 16 years, another girl lost her life forever. Because it shows how stupid your argument is.

Don't ever have kids. If one of them died, you wouldn't even care. You'd brush it off and make disgusting remarks about them instead. Hell, you'd even justify their deaths.

reply

[–] Xeliou66 8 years ago

I don't know what the deal is with the Fangs poster but obviously she doesn't care at all about the victims in these cases and instead makes excuses for the perpetrators. First with the woman in the premiere who didn't report terrorism and now with Sean in the most recent episode. She is a dumbass who makes illogical arguments and then resorts to slinging insults when she is proven wrong.

reply

[–] Arnold25 8 years ago

Yep, they cry about people mean to him, but he started insulting people first. From the very first post where someone disagreed with him.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Xeliou66 8 years ago

Shut up you fat wheelchair bound virgin. I criticize Benson frequently, you have no idea what you are talking about as usual dumbass. You however attack anyone who doesn't like Cassidy or still likes the show. You are the troll.

reply

[–] FangsMcWolf 8 years ago

Xeliou66 » 12 hours ago (Fri Sep 30 2016 15:48:29)
IMDb member since April 2015
I don't know what the deal is with the Fangs poster but obviously she doesn't care at all about the victims in these cases and instead makes excuses for the perpetrators. First with the woman in the premiere who didn't report terrorism and now with Sean in the most recent episode. She is a dumbass who makes illogical arguments and then resorts to slinging insults when she is proven wrong.

When did I become a 'she'? Also, I care about the victims. First, the woman in the premiere who was a hostage that got wrongly charged as a terrorist and then the guy who got no sympathy after having spent 16 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit.

Being described as illogical by someone who ignores facts doesn't bother me one bit, because that in itself invalidates your description.

reply

[–] Arnold25 8 years ago

But not for the victims of the shooting or the young woman who was raped and killed.

reply

[–] FangsMcWolf 8 years ago

Arnold25 (Fri Sep 30 2016 15:39:43)
You really are dumb, or a liar. Where did I say I want blood? Where did I say he should die or get life in prison? I've said the 15 year deal is fair. Much more fair than a light 5 year sentence. I'm taking what he went through into consideration. That's why 15 years is fair.

You just don't care at all about the young woman who lost her life completely. And that reply proves it.

You only want to agree to disagree because you've been proven wrong. You don't mention anything about how he didn't use your defense and instead lied and was willing to let someone else to prison wrongly. You ignore how while he lost 16 years, another girl lost her life forever. Because it shows how stupid your argument is.

Don't ever have kids. If one of them died, you wouldn't even care. You'd brush it off and make disgusting remarks about them instead. Hell, you'd even justify their deaths.

I'm neither dumb nor a liar. I said to "agree to disagree" because you obviously won't change my viewpoint and I obviously won't change yours. No where did I say anything to indicate that you are right. You want true justice for the girl who lost her life? Okay, then how about locking up the girls mother for wrongly identifying the man, as well as the prosecutor and those involved in the investigation? What about those at fault for not getting that rape kit tested sooner that would have exonerated him? He may have been the one to physically commit the crime, but all those people had a hand in his becoming the kind of person to do it.

Seriously, stop acting like your flawed assumptions are logical facts. Your take on life is that the safety of ones child shouldn't matter (ref the other discussion). After all, the mother should have gone to the authorities.. So what if her child is killed as a result, at least she would have done the right thing. That's YOUR stance on it, not mine. Mine is understanding her fear of harm coming to him (or herself) and thus her being so worried that she didn't do what you feel she should have done. In this instance, the woman's daughter is already dead. Nothing will bring her back, so yes, the one who killed her should serve time, but the circumstances of what lead up to it should be considered as well. In both instances, it's about treating people like individual human beings, not treating them like lifeless robots.

reply

[–] Arnold25 8 years ago

Nope. He wasn't forced. People go to prison, including innocent people, and don't hurt or kill anyone when they come out. So acting like he was forced and didn't have a choice is disgusting.

His past is being taken into consideration. That's why he's only getting 15 years for a rape and murder. As opposed to 30 years or life. You are dumb, because you don't understand that.

You also refuse to acknowledge how he kept lying and would have let someone else do the time for him. If the fiance didn't have an alibi, Sean would have let HIM go to prison for a crime he didn't commit. But you don't care about that.

Again, don't have kids. You'd treat them like clothes or items you can just discard and forget about.

reply

[–] FangsMcWolf 8 years ago

Arnold25 » 6 minutes ago (Fri Sep 30 2016 15:57:49)
IMDb member since June 2016
Nope. He wasn't forced. People go to prison, including innocent people, and don't hurt or kill anyone when they come out. So acting like he was forced and didn't have a choice is disgusting.

His past is being taken into consideration. That's why he's only getting 15 years for a rape and murder. As opposed to 30 years or life. You are dumb, because you don't understand that.

You also refuse to acknowledge how he kept lying and would have let someone else do the time for him. If the fiance didn't have an alibi, Sean would have let HIM go to prison for a crime he didn't commit. But you don't care about that.

Again, don't have kids. You'd treat them like clothes or items you can just discard and forget about.

I haven't refused to acknowledge it. But if you want me to, okay, I acknowledge that he lied because he didn't want to go back to prison, where he was sent based on lies. Imagine, he went to prison because of lies when he was being honest. Imagine what could happen to him (from his perspective) if he is honest about the situation. Oh, yeah, they'll just eat him alive. Because of past experience, he has a legitimate reason to not trust those prosecuting him. Not that he couldn't have chosen a better route, but it's understandable why he wouldn't be trusting of them with the truth.

Peoples behaviors and decision making are influenced by experiences in life. He was in prison for 16 years for a crime he didn't commit. Overlooking the wrongful conviction part for a moment, those 16 years played a role in who he became. Some people are able to go in and then come back out with their morals intact. But truth be told, it's understandable for someone of high morals to become corrupt easier than the other way around. Let's say that because Sean became corrupt due to being in prison, that it was due to his being weak, to where it wouldn't have taken much to get him to become a criminal. So, being in prison only broke any resistance down so he became what was already inside. So in a way, he was in a place he belonged anyway. The problem is, with that argument, there are a lot of people who belong in prison because they are the same. But here's the flip side. What if Sean wouldn't have ever been pushed/influenced to becoming a criminal. Despite it not taking much, without that influence, it never would have happened. Would he still deserve to be in prison even though it wouldn't take much to turn him into an offender?

The reality is that regardless of who he was before, he was changed, due to no fault of his own, and instead of giving him the usual punishment for what he was changed to at the fault of the justice system, he should get a special punishment with a goal of trying to help undo some of that damage. If he hadn't been in there in the first place, chances are he wouldn't have killed Ashley, and he might even have a family now. I won't deny that Ashley's death is a tragedy, but instead of putting the blame solely on him, what made him that way (the fact that he was in prison when he shouldn't have been) should be a big part of the equation.

I find it interesting how a guy who went through undeserved abuse and torment should take the full blame for something and the blame shouldn't be shared... Yet, a woman who was a victim and scared for her life and wasn't directly or indirectly responsible for something should be held accountable for the crimes of someone else.

You seem to be heavy into punishing people with no regards to individual circumstances. Wow.

reply

[–] Arnold25 8 years ago

See? Again you might actually be the stupidest person in existence. It's almost impressive. Either that or your trolling, which now that I think about it is more likely.

I am taking what happened into consideration. Because I would have given him 15 years. Fifteen sure as hell beats LIFE, you dolt. With 15 years, he's serving a lengthy sentence, but much shorter than he'd get normally. He's serving a punishment, but he also will get out and still be young enough to have decades of life left. Which is more than the girl he killed got.

Now stop trolling. It's pathetic.

reply

[–] FangsMcWolf 8 years ago

Arnold25 (Fri Sep 30 2016 16:35:41)
See? Again you might actually be the stupidest person in existence. It's almost impressive. Either that or your trolling, which now that I think about it is more likely.

I am taking what happened into consideration. Because I would have given him 15 years. Fifteen sure as hell beats LIFE, you dolt. With 15 years, he's serving a lengthy sentence, but much shorter than he'd get normally. He's serving a punishment, but he also will get out and still be young enough to have decades of life left. Which is more than the girl he killed got.

Now stop trolling. It's pathetic.

Funny that you are trying to say that *I* might be the stupidest person in existence when you are making stupid comments.

Let's do a study. You go rot in prison for 16 years for a crime you didn't commit. Then when let out, commit a crime and then tell me if it's fair that the reaction isn't, "We played a part in it so let's try to undo some of the damage" and instead it's "You dun f*k up, so now you get to rot in jail some more, MUAHAHAHA!"

It's a good thing you aren't a judge, you would be sentencing people to death simply for getting a parking ticket. As for what is pathetic, you having a zero tolerance attitude with your perception of how the law should be enforced, combined with showing absolutely no empathy for others.

reply

[–] Arnold25 8 years ago

You are such a troll. That's clear now. You simply like to lie and make things up. Pathetic.

If you were a judge you'd give anyone with a sob story a free pass. If Ted Bundy came in your court and cried that he was bullied as a kid you'd cry with him and let him go.

Start using your tiny little head. Why are you so stupid that you think 15 years is life in prison?

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mippygee 8 years ago

Odafin Tutuola is a messed up Attorney....

reply

[–] Arnold25 8 years ago

Who are you talking to? And why are you yelling?

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] heidimsw 8 years ago

Yes, indeed. This entire episode screamed the Steven Avery case. I was disappointed.

reply