Carisi must tread carefully when Maxwell's husband becomes a person of interest in an SVU investigation. Benson sends Velasco to take an old friend into custody.Carisi must tread carefully when Maxwell's husband becomes a person of interest in an SVU investigation. Benson sends Velasco to take an old friend into custody.Carisi must tread carefully when Maxwell's husband becomes a person of interest in an SVU investigation. Benson sends Velasco to take an old friend into custody.
Ice-T
- Sergeant Odafin 'Fin' Tutuola
- (as Ice T)
- (credit only)
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaIt is common both in this series and in real life for people to think, in terms of sex crimes, that oral sex is not as serious or "bad" as sexual intercourse, but that is not true. In the eyes of the law an adult having oral sex with a minor is just as severe as sexual intercourse. For example the minors in this episode are 15 years old; an adult having oral sex with a 15-year old is criminal sexual act in the third degree, if they had sexual intercourse the charge would be rape in the third degree. Both charges are a class E felony in New York and carry the same sentence, either five years probation or a prison sentence of at least one year and a maximum of four years; for these charges probation is rarely sentenced, if it is that is usually because the defendant had no prior criminal record and cooperated with authorities.
- GoofsIn New York the charge of possessing an obscene sexual performance by a child is a class D felony, Maxwell says that it is a class E felony. However the less severe, but similar, charge of possessing a sexual performance by a child is a class E felony, which might explain the confusion. The E felony charge has a sentence of 1 1/3 to 4 years jail time and the D felony a sentence of 2 1/3 to 7 years prison time.
- Quotes
Detective Joe Velasco: Are we good?
Captain Olivia Benson: We're good.
Featured review
Awful Even by SVU Standards
So . . . SVU goes on yet another male bashing tirade.
Case in point. The really bland DA chooses to hide something - *she* chooses - and then says it was so she wouldn't *emasculate* - notice, they could just as easily have chosen a neutral term, like humiliate - her wormy husband. So, he's to blame for *her* decision.
Let's turn that around.
If he had been the DA and his wife had done something wrong - and he chooses to do something illegal and further chooses to characterize his decision in a way that is sexist toward his wife, as though she is to blame - we not only would be justifiably outraged at *him*, we'd also say the decision was solely his to own.
This is what viewers mean when they are offended by something that rather than simply tell a story, instead subjects them to an editorial disguised as one. There's nothing wrong with telling a story about a woman wronged by a man, but when the deck is stacked this cheesily, it's clumsy and amateurish.
Drama - even bad melodrama like SVU - doesn't come from stacking the deck so obviously. It comes from conflict, including creating conflict in the audience about what's happening in the story (and not how bad the writing is).
If they're on their feet and clapping at the TV while saying, "You go, girl!" that's not conflict. That's propaganda.
Real conflict is a wife struggling over doing her job and hurting her husband. It doesn't make her husband a two-bit creep so she can pontificate to him while he worms his way around. It doesn't make her spout of trite dialogue written as though for a Cosmopolitan article. And it makes her take ownership of her own decisions and not gaslight them onto someone else.
The end is like science fiction. Remember when characters used to do things within the realm of probability? That's all off the table now, where characters are written like they're in soap opera.
Just bad, bad television.
Case in point. The really bland DA chooses to hide something - *she* chooses - and then says it was so she wouldn't *emasculate* - notice, they could just as easily have chosen a neutral term, like humiliate - her wormy husband. So, he's to blame for *her* decision.
Let's turn that around.
If he had been the DA and his wife had done something wrong - and he chooses to do something illegal and further chooses to characterize his decision in a way that is sexist toward his wife, as though she is to blame - we not only would be justifiably outraged at *him*, we'd also say the decision was solely his to own.
This is what viewers mean when they are offended by something that rather than simply tell a story, instead subjects them to an editorial disguised as one. There's nothing wrong with telling a story about a woman wronged by a man, but when the deck is stacked this cheesily, it's clumsy and amateurish.
Drama - even bad melodrama like SVU - doesn't come from stacking the deck so obviously. It comes from conflict, including creating conflict in the audience about what's happening in the story (and not how bad the writing is).
If they're on their feet and clapping at the TV while saying, "You go, girl!" that's not conflict. That's propaganda.
Real conflict is a wife struggling over doing her job and hurting her husband. It doesn't make her husband a two-bit creep so she can pontificate to him while he worms his way around. It doesn't make her spout of trite dialogue written as though for a Cosmopolitan article. And it makes her take ownership of her own decisions and not gaslight them onto someone else.
The end is like science fiction. Remember when characters used to do things within the realm of probability? That's all off the table now, where characters are written like they're in soap opera.
Just bad, bad television.
helpful•1125
- bkkaz
- Apr 28, 2023
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content