Aurelio sent me short clip of a recent Law and Order: Special Victims Unit episode.
I was wondering what was going on, so I got the whole episode and watched it.
On a sidenote, the series´ logo is a complete disgrace that was obviously created by a colourblind photoshop rookie who had just discovered the "text shadow" and "emboss" options.
Anyway, it turned out the whole thing was sort of a "50 Shades of Grey"-esque episode.
A young writer has smashing success with a very kinky book.
After she was in a talk show she ends up in bed with the famous, yet a little sleazy talk show host - which is exactly what she wanted, by the way.
She ends up getting a little more than she wanted - she tries to tell me him to stop, but he suffocates her with a belt, so she can´t really.
The truly splendid police learns that she does not want to press charges - but they decide to approach the host about it anyway.
Clever move. This leads to another encounter of the two in which the quite unamused host takes the girl rather violently in an elevator.
Although not suffocated this time and in a house full of people the author neither screams or fights this assault.
After some investigations it turns out she never wrote the book at all, but her former professor did and used her as a dummy. She isn´t even into rough sex.
As this would have to become public in a trial she wants to drop the charges, but then is literally blackmailed by the prosector to testify anyway.
Nice! This means she will be brandmarked as a liar and also - due to her contract - will lose all the shares of the book sales.
In the end the host is found guilty of rape. Now, please don´t misunderstand me!
The writers of the episode do everything to show the popular host as a vicious individual who deserves the sentence. As the scene is shown it is rape, too.
But what really annoyed me is the complete lack of realism and legal knowledge.
Because, the actual evidence situation goes like this:
Noone witnessed the events. His word (she requested this exactly this way) stands against hers.
Indisputably she wanted sex. The whole sexual events - even the belt - are a recreation of a scene that happens in her book. There was no way for him to know she was not into it.
She could not say much to him after she was strangled with the belt.
A real-life lawyer would have probably ripped the whole case into pieces by simply pointing out the usual existence of a safe word.
The writers of the episode also seem to believe that the sort and amount of violence is of any relevance for the case.
But it´s not. The crunchpoint in such a case would be to prove that he did or had to know that what he did was against her will.
In the constellation at hand this would be extremely difficult.
A conviction simply would not only be unlikely, but close to impossible.
The resolution is the funniest thing, too. The host does not even deny he suffocated the author with a belt claiming it was consensual!
So why would a judge allow a prosecutor to make the defendant strangle the prosecutor at a trial? Nothing of relevance to be proven by this.
And then let the prosecutor mock the defendant again and again until the situation escalates?
And let´s not talk about the probabilty of a experienced show host to lose control like this in such a public place with everybody watching...
So basically they would have to come up with something better than that to make the verdict at least a little credible.
And I believe some viewers would also get the impression that the police was not really helping her, but rather ruining the girl´s life against her will, too.
I especially like the line they make one detective say right at the end - she seriously complains that in her unit "you have to prove that a crime was commited".
Yes. That should be the general rule for any sensible legal system. I believe it is valid even in the USA.
It´s episode 3 of season 14, by the way - in case you want to watch it.
Here's my clip for this:
---
Here´s another bonus pic (Kourtney Kardashian):
![]()
I was wondering what was going on, so I got the whole episode and watched it.
On a sidenote, the series´ logo is a complete disgrace that was obviously created by a colourblind photoshop rookie who had just discovered the "text shadow" and "emboss" options.
Anyway, it turned out the whole thing was sort of a "50 Shades of Grey"-esque episode.
A young writer has smashing success with a very kinky book.
After she was in a talk show she ends up in bed with the famous, yet a little sleazy talk show host - which is exactly what she wanted, by the way.
She ends up getting a little more than she wanted - she tries to tell me him to stop, but he suffocates her with a belt, so she can´t really.
The truly splendid police learns that she does not want to press charges - but they decide to approach the host about it anyway.
Clever move. This leads to another encounter of the two in which the quite unamused host takes the girl rather violently in an elevator.
Although not suffocated this time and in a house full of people the author neither screams or fights this assault.
After some investigations it turns out she never wrote the book at all, but her former professor did and used her as a dummy. She isn´t even into rough sex.
As this would have to become public in a trial she wants to drop the charges, but then is literally blackmailed by the prosector to testify anyway.
Nice! This means she will be brandmarked as a liar and also - due to her contract - will lose all the shares of the book sales.
In the end the host is found guilty of rape. Now, please don´t misunderstand me!
The writers of the episode do everything to show the popular host as a vicious individual who deserves the sentence. As the scene is shown it is rape, too.
But what really annoyed me is the complete lack of realism and legal knowledge.
Because, the actual evidence situation goes like this:
Noone witnessed the events. His word (she requested this exactly this way) stands against hers.
Indisputably she wanted sex. The whole sexual events - even the belt - are a recreation of a scene that happens in her book. There was no way for him to know she was not into it.
She could not say much to him after she was strangled with the belt.
A real-life lawyer would have probably ripped the whole case into pieces by simply pointing out the usual existence of a safe word.
The writers of the episode also seem to believe that the sort and amount of violence is of any relevance for the case.
But it´s not. The crunchpoint in such a case would be to prove that he did or had to know that what he did was against her will.
In the constellation at hand this would be extremely difficult.
A conviction simply would not only be unlikely, but close to impossible.
The resolution is the funniest thing, too. The host does not even deny he suffocated the author with a belt claiming it was consensual!
So why would a judge allow a prosecutor to make the defendant strangle the prosecutor at a trial? Nothing of relevance to be proven by this.
And then let the prosecutor mock the defendant again and again until the situation escalates?
And let´s not talk about the probabilty of a experienced show host to lose control like this in such a public place with everybody watching...
So basically they would have to come up with something better than that to make the verdict at least a little credible.
And I believe some viewers would also get the impression that the police was not really helping her, but rather ruining the girl´s life against her will, too.
I especially like the line they make one detective say right at the end - she seriously complains that in her unit "you have to prove that a crime was commited".
Yes. That should be the general rule for any sensible legal system. I believe it is valid even in the USA.
It´s episode 3 of season 14, by the way - in case you want to watch it.
Here's my clip for this:
---
Here´s another bonus pic (Kourtney Kardashian):
