Greg Donaldson

Ethics in Law and Order

Weblog 1

January 23, 2010

Weblog One

Question 1: How realistic was the episode?

Law and Order is designed to be a captivating program that turns the slow-moving and tedious work of the police and lawyers into a fast-paced, high action drama that glues a viewer to their seat. As a preface to my judgments on the show, I am required to say that I know very little about the legal system outside of the fundamentals. With that disclaimer, I feel free to discuss my opinion of the realism of the show. I feel that the episode of Law and Order did not stay true the legal system at all. Many questions came up with many of the actions of the casts. First, when the detectives arrest the wrestling coach, Detective Stabler starts kicking the chair out underneath the coach and roughs him up, I do not think that would be allowed for an officer of the law to do that. When they figured out the dad is the rapists, they go to his office to arrest him and then search the office for his laptop without a warrant, the detectives find the laptop in the closet where they could not freely search. When they make the deal to try to get the president of the pedophile organization, the officers put the child in direct harm with his father and the president in the same room. I believe officers of the law would never endanger a person, especially a child in an attempt to arrest another bad guy. One of the most notable problems with the entire show is the event move incredibly fast, practically no time passes between events, and the trial is over incredible quickly. Overall, I believe the episode of Law and Order portrays am extremely Hollywood version of legal workings.

Question 2: How effective was it?

While this seems to be an incredibly negative view of the program, I actually really enjoyed the episode. Due to the changes, it makes the legal system become a dramatic, exciting adventure. The cops make it so a viewer can really feel like the cops are creating a war against the pedophiles. When this atmosphere is created, the watcher truly pulls for the cops and there are no questions raised about whether this is real or not. In combination with the non-stop action brought about by removing all the mundane parts of legal work, creates the high action ride to keep the viewer in their seats, but also keeps enough truth for it to be believable. So by walking this line between action and reality, Law and Order has become one of the most riveting show on all of television.

Ethics in Law and Order

1. First, how realistic was the episode, based on what you know of real legal processes?

I don’t know very much about real legal processes, so I don’t have much information to draw from, but I felt like this episode of Law and Order was very unrealistic. I think one of the things that made the episode so unrealistic was the time line. From the first incidence to the trial, there seemed like there was barely two days that had passed. I also thought that all of the interactions between the victims, the suspects, and the police were very dramatic, and in real life would probably not have been so emotional. To me, the most unbelievable scene in the episode was the undercover operation set up to out the man in charge of the pedophile community. Realistically, the police would never have put the victim and his unstable, emotional mother in the same room as the suspects in order to arrest the leader of the pedophile community. Then, there was the domestic abuse free pass given to the mother after she had an outburst of anger and stabbed her husband. It was apparent that the policewoman became emotionally attached to the mother and her son and believed that the son needed his mother that night. In real life, this most likely would not have been allowed. All in all, the episode was very unrealistic but had certain pieces of reality that allowed the viewer to go along with the story.

2. Second, how effective was it?

As I just said, because the unrealistic aspects of the episode were bridged with small pieces of reality, it became more believable and I was more willing to accept the story as true. The goal of the creators of the show is definitely to entertain the public, not to inform the public about the practice of law. The episode was definitely interesting, right from the beginning. From the action of the car accident and fight between the two mothers, to the suspicion that Cory had been sexually abused, the viewer was definitely entertained. The story was far-fetched, but that was one of the things that kept you watching. Because the episode was infused with reality the viewer had reason to believe that even the far-fetched ideas in the show were possible. At the conclusion of the show I was definitely wondering if what had happened in the episode had ever happened in real life, and I was entertained enough that I could have sat through another episode of Law and Order.

1. Evaluate the episode of Law & Order that we watched in class in two ways: First, how realistic was the episode, based on what you know of real legal processes. (You don't have to do research to answer this question--simply consider it based on what you already know.)

The episode we viewed in class was not very realistic. Many things occurred in the episode that would never occur in real life. For example, the police would not secretly take a child to the hospital without parental consent. The police would also never put in danger a child going through emotional distress through a sting operation. The story line was not realistic. During the episode, coincidence after coincidence added up. This would not have happened in reality. The episode also had a skewed time frame. A real case and court trial would have taken much longer than what was portrayed on the episode.

2. How effective was it? (To answer this part of the question, you'll first have to identify a goal, again, based on what you know of it rather than research, then evaluate how well it achieves the goal.) Consider whether and to what extent the concessions to reality add or detract to the show's effectiveness.

The goal of this episode was to entertain the audience. This episode was successful in this goal. It appealed to the viewer’s pathos, making them feel sympathetic for the characters. It used an interesting story line filled with drama and suspense, to catch the viewer’s attention. Even though the viewer is entertained, they may take the episode as reality, which is not the case. If the show were made more realistic, it would detract from the show’s effectiveness. To make the show more accurate, specific parts of the legal process would have to be included. They are not as interesting as some of the others, and this is why they are omitted or abbreviated in the show.

Ethics in Law and Order

1. First, how realistic was the episode, based on what you know of real legal processes?

This episode seemed to be fairly realistic. It followed the normal legal processes, or at least appeared to, for most of the episode. However, there were many parts that seemed very unrealistic from my limited knowledge of legal processes. These moments started early in the program when one of the detectives attacked a suspect when he asked for his lawyer, a great example of another unrealistic aspect of this episode: the detectives' emotional attachment to the characters. It seemed that they made far too many personal visits to the family of the victim and were extremely emotional whenever interrogating a suspect.

Another unrealistic scene was the one in which the child was allowed to be put into harms way in order to get evidence on another suspect. This would never happen in a real investigation. There are far too many risk factors in a situation like that, the child is obviously in danger, but so is the husband as was shown during the episode when he was stabbed by the emotional mother at the end of the scene. This lead to yet another fantastic storyline as the detective told the mother that her assault charges would "blow over," despite her being caught on camera and the crime being witnessed by several members of the police force.

The final aspect of this episode that was obviously fictitious was the timeline, it was far too fast. It seemed to take only a few days to gather enough evidence for a trial, and then a week or less to complete the trial and get a guilty verdict. This process would take much longer in a real trial situation.

2.Second, how effective was it?

The goal of this program is to entertain. In that respect, it served it's purpose. The episode was highly entertaining, throughout the time that I was watching it I found myself wanting to find out what would happen at the end; whether or not the father would be found guilty, if they could apprehend the website owner without any harm coming to the child, and even at the end I found the trial interesting, even if the defense was a bit far-fetched. The fantastic nature of the episode did not in any way detract from its entertainment value, in fact, it added to it. Even though I knew that it was not a very accurate program, I was still hooked by the plot and the characters which lead to me being entertained throughout the episode.

Ethics in Law and Order: January 19, 2011

1. For your first weblog entry, please evaluate the episode of Law & Order that we watched in class in two ways: First, how realistic was the episode, based on what you know of real legal processes.

-I thought this episode of Law and Order was unrealistic, but still had some basic law proceedings right. The basic steps followed in the episode seemed to be correct: the victims were questioned about their experience, the persons of interest were arrested and brought to the station and interrogated, the evidence was reviewed, the suspects were charged, and a trial followed. The episode first lost its realistic edge when the detectives jumped to conclusions of sexual abuse following the young boy’s confession to wrestling. From there, the details of the legal proceeding of the episode became far-fetched. Although there was most likely some time elapse during the course of the episode, the overall course of events occurred entirely too quickly. The emotional attachment depicted in the episode was also fairly unreal. Part of a detective’s job is to stay detached from the situation in order to make good decisions- not make daily house calls and visits.

2. Second, how effective was it? (To answer this part of the question, you'll first have to identify a goal, again, based on what you know of it rather than research, then evaluate how well it achieves the goal.) Consider whether and to what extent the concessions to reality add or detract to the show's effectiveness.

- Because this was an episode of Law and Order, the main goal for the program was to be entertaining to the general public. Evaluating the episode based solely on its goal of entertainment, then the episode was very effective and successful in achieving its goal. The show really followed only the very basic law proceedings, which allowed for more entertainment than anything. An entire show of legal proceedings wouldn’t be as entertaining. Because the show is dramatized, the general public is more able to understand what is going on. Also by exempting some basic legal processes, the show is condensed into a length able to keep people’s attention.

Ethics in Law & Order: January 19

1. First, how realistic was the episode, based on what you know of real legal processes?

- I thought this episode was extremely unrealistic when it comes to real legal processes. While the general format of the legal proceedings seemed to be on target, the details of the way in which these proceedings were carried out was not realistic. For example, the detectives in this episode got extremely emotionally involved with the victims and made house calls, whereas in reality they would remain more detached. Also, the way in which they used the little boy to capture the bigger criminal would never have happened in real life. They wouldn't have wanted to risk putting a child's mental and physical health in danger. Another aspect of this episode that was unrealistic was the way in which the mother got out of jail so quickly for stabbing the man that was head of the club. Instead of having to go to court over it, the detectives acted like everything would blow over once the leader was arrested. Lastly, the entire legal process took place over a few days, when in reality it could have taken months or even years to finalize. Although the episode was entertaining, it did not realistically portray real legal processes.

2. How effective was it? (To answer this part of the question, you'll first have to identify a goal, again, based on what you know of it rather than research, then evaluate how well it achieves the goal).

- Although this episode was not necessarily successful in portraying real legal processes, it was effective in achieving the main goal of being entertaining to the audience. The concessions to reality add to the show's effectiveness because it keeps the audience entertained. For example, the over-dramatized fight scene with the mothers, the extra aggression of the detectives, and the speedy trial process all serve to keep the audience actively entertained with the story. If the show were to strictly portray a real legal proceeding, the audience would get bored very quickly, and the story would never be resolved in the 1-hour allotted time.

Welcome!

We hope you will use this blog to talk about issues raised in class as well as to answer our questions. It's your space to explore.

Ethics in Law and Order: January 19th 2011

1. How realistic was the episode, based on what you know of real legal processes?

I thought that the episode was not very realistic. The first thing that I noticed was the dramatic start of the show. Within the first few minutes, there was an assault, accusations, and sexual issues involving young children. Another thing that I thought was not very realistic was the male detective being physically confrontational when the suspects were already contained. While interviewing the wrestling coach, he began to suffocate him and then when while meeting with the operator of the child site, he kicked the chair out from under him and was rough. The counter deal that the father offered (5,000 names and addresses) from a simple dinner also seemed unrealistic. A deal that great would not usually be that readily available. Also, the images and videos stored on the fathers computer and flash drive were pretty easily found. I thought that the detectives made too many compromises in conducting the case; first by going along with the counter deal even though it put the wife and child in danger and secondly by dismissing the mother's stabbing the husband. Lastly, I thought that the child breaking into the courtroom and professing his love for his mother and making the jury sympathetic was also unrealistic. This would not be allowed in a normal case, and even though the judge tried to stop the boy from speaking, he still got his words out and was heard by the jury.

2. How effective was it? (To answer this part of the question, you'll first have to identify a goal, again, based on what you know of it rather than research, then evaluate how well it achieves the goal.) Consider whether and to what extent the concessions to reality add or detract to the show's effectiveness.

I believe the goal of this episode was to make the audience angry about child rape and the existence of secret organizations enabling pedophile relationships. I thought that the episode did a good job of achieving this goal. The unrealistic aspects of the show, such as the boy breaking in to the courtroom and spilling his heart out to the people also helped to make the audience of the show sympathetic as well. Also, the stepfather proposing a counter deal to get him out of trouble after what he did made the audience dislike him that much more. He did not own up to his actions and accept punishment but rather tried to save himself. Also by proposing this counter deal, he caused the wife and son to have to eat dinner with him and the site operator, thus further endangering them.