Law & Order (TV Series) Manhood (1993) User Reviews

From here to eternity

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 19 August 2020]

As has been said quite a few times in some of my other reviews, 'Law and Order' often excelled when it came to exploring subjects and themes that are not easy to explore or discuss and still topical now. Managing to do it in a way that on the most part wasn't done too heavy-handedly or trivialised, the best of them hitting very hard as ought. The subject here is one of Season 3's most difficult and polarising, one that was very relevant back in 1993 and is very much now.

Season 3's penultimate episode is one of the better ones of the season when it comes to how the subjects covered in Season 3 were executed. Also consider it one of the best episodes of the season and despite how controversial the subject is it is a hard-hitting episode without over-emphasising that it becomes preachy. Nor did it seem too careful to not offend, this subject needs a pull no punches approach to have the full emotional punch and that is what can be seen here.

"Manhood" as said doesn't have an easy topic to explore, it's a controversial one with extreme opinions on both sides and is too often a target of unfair discrimination. It's dealt with very well here, despite the attitudes of the defendants no judgement is actually made and there isn't too much of one opinion favoured over the other. It doesn't feel heavy-handed and is likely to hit home with many, having a close family member in a happy same sex marriage this did resonate and made me feel a wider range of emotions than most episodes of the third season.

Really enjoyed the script too, not just the tension and insight of the legal scenes. But also the banter between Briscoe and Logan and cannot get enough of Briscoe's wisecracks. The acting is very good from especially Jerry Orbach and Michael Moriarty as the show's most interesting characters at this point.

Production values are slick and professional, not ever resorting to cheap or untested gimmicks or anything. The music is haunting in the right places and isn't constant or too loud, and the direction gives the drama urgency and breathing space. The case is compelling and intricate, keeping one guessing without over-stuffing or convolution. The moral dilemmas of the subject and how to prosecute it being complex and insightful without taking sides.

For my tastes, having said all those great things, the outcome however was too unsatisfyingly lenient.

Overall, great. 9/10

Gay Panic Defense

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 27 August 2017]

When four people were arrested in the death of a young gay police officer when all else failed to dent Michael Moriarty's case the gay panic defense was used. An expert psychologist is brought in to testify that the perpetrators were so unnerved by the presence of a gay man in proximity that they reacted instinctively.

The instinct here was that these four people were his fellow cops and they deliberately failed to come to his aid in a shootout with a drug dealer. It's the case Jerry Orbach and Chris Noth build after arresting the actual shooter. It's a nauseating situation.

Compounded by the fact these cops were clearly homophobic and the gay panic defense is used to justify it. It's discredited now, the federal courts have banned it and so have a few states.

It's still used today in some areas with mixed results. See how it turns out for Michael Moriarty.

Hate Crime.

[rmax304823 · 8/10 · 29 December 2010]

A cop is alone on foot patrol, his partner on leave attending some family function in Brooklyn. The cop happens upon a drug deal. A shoot out ensues with the cop calling for back up. Two squad cars respond to the call but take an inordinate amount of time to reach the scene, and they find the cop shot to death by one of the drug dealers, also dead.

It's the kind of tragedy that activates all police officers. One of their own has been killed on duty. Yet evidence accumulates that the two back up cars didn't exactly speed their way to the rescue. A witness claims he saw one of the car parked around the corner during the fire fight.

Brisco and Logan look into the dead officer's apartment and discover that he was gay. Further, they turn up indications that a good deal of hatred towards him existed in the precinct. A flyer, for instance, was circulating in the locker room quoting the Bible: "No man shall lie down with another man." It becomes apparent that the officer was deliberately left to die by his colleagues, who knew he was gay. The precinct captain, who has an impeccable record, denies any wrong doing on his own part and has suspended the officers who deliberately kept away from the scene.

The victim's partner, who was not on duty at the time, also turns out to be gay, one of the reasons the two men were made partners. ("Now there are two of you," said the captain.) The partner turns on his guilty fellows, Stone prosecutes, and the jury's verdict is "Not Guilty," so the anti-gay cops go free.

This episode has the advantage of not trying to sidestep the very real issues it raises. Police officers have well-defined social borders around their subculture. You're either one of us or you're not. It's like the Great Wall of China. Similar borders are found among doctors, airline pilots, stunt men, and some other occupational communities.

In this case, the question is whether a police officer owes his allegiance to everyone else inside those same borders, or whether a select few may be excluded for some characterological flaw, even if it doesn't affect their performance on the job. We can call it "the Serpico conundrum." The question has a good deal of resonance as I write this, since the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy governing the status of gays in the military has just been repealed. Gay men and lesbians can now serve openly. Polls show that this is good enough for a large majority of Americans, both in and out of the military, but it has left a number of us extremely unhappy. Legislators are now proposing separate showers for gays and straights. Some politicians are intent on bringing back the old arrangement, in which an admission of homosexuality in the military was a ticket to a court martial and then to civilian status. The jury in this episode, in excusing the officers responsible for the shooting death of the gay cop, represent that minority of Americans who believe homosexuality is a matter of free will, a choice of evil over good, and deserving of punishment, no matter how extreme.

I'm not so sure they'd get off so easily today, almost twenty years later. In diverse but limited ways, the public has become a little more sophisticated and tolerant.

Shine a light, shame the devil

[labenji-12163 · 7/10 · 14 December 2020]

In the 21st century its a bit difficult to stomach such reckless intolerance; however, with the final verdict, I had to remind myself it was the early 90s and our society still condemned homosexuality. I believe we have become more tolerant and accepting of a diverse population.

And if not for lawyers and people speaking out on various hate crimes. It has taken centuries of heartache, heartbreak, and human blood to get us to a place of acceptance and inclusion of LGBQT.

It takes a village

[safenoe · 7/10 · 11 October 2023]

It's unclear where the Law and Order writers stood on the gay (LGBTITQ) panic defence. Like were they trying to "give both sides" of the defence to white cops who were accused of second degree murder of a gay cop. Interesting references to the president elected in 1992 and the political forces aligned with him, who according to the police in this episode, were putting pressure on the prosecutors to go after the white, heterosexual cops, kind of like the one played by Michael Douglas in Basic Instinct, which starred a former Law and Order actor.

This is a controversial episode and it didn't even deal with racial discrimination.