No one does ambiguity better than Law & Order: SVU.
Sadly, it hasn’t gone there for a while. Most cases have an obvious answer, whether or not the accused rapist is convicted.
Law & Order: SVU Season 26 Episode 15 was more like the cases of years gone by, offering a story where everyone was wrong but it wasn’t clear what justice would look like. Let’s discuss!
Law & Order: SVU Season 26 Episode 15 Demonstrated That A One-Size-Fits-All Approach To The Law Doesn’t Work
This case was one of the few times that left me unsure what was right or fair by the time the credits rolled.
Statuatory rape is rape, full stop, so acknowledging that put this story miles ahead of Law & Order: SVU Season 23 Episode 6.
When a 16-year-old Benson slept with a 21-year-old man, that was also statutory rape, and the guy was grooming her, too, but sadly, it wasn’t taken seriously enough.
This time, though, it seemed like both Stacey and Ryan were in the wrong, yet that doesn’t change the fact that an adult having sex with a sixteen-year-old is not appropriate or acceptable.
This case was difficult to judge because it wasn’t a straightforward story about an adult who intentionally had sex with a minor.
The issue of Stacey thinking that Ryan was an adult explored whether there are ever times when it is reasonable for an adult to believe the other person is also over 18 rather than being liable because they didn’t confirm it.
In Stacey’s case, she met Ryan at the hotel bar, where he was drinking alcohol, so she assumed he had to be over the age of 21.
The bartender should not have served him without checking ID, and the fact that he didn’t bolstered Stacey’s case.
Of course, as a middle school teacher, Stacey should have been aware that teenagers sometimes do things they shouldn’t, including using fake IDs to get their hands on alcohol.
Still, it’s understandable that she assumed she didn’t need to see Ryan’s ID to confirm he was over 18 because the bartender already had.
The law doesn’t account for these types of situations, but should it?
There are plenty of cases where a man gets busted for being with a sixteen-year-old girl he thought was eighteen — is that right or wrong?
It would clog the legal system up even more than it is already backed up if cops had to have an expert evaluate whether every person accused of statutory rape truly believed that their sexual partner was over the age of consent.
That’s why the law is the way it is — yet a blanket requirement that the adult verify their partner’s age before continuing ignores the fact that humans use context clues to understand and interpret their world, and a guy who looks like he’s in his 20s drinking alcohol at a bar offers strong evidence that he is over the age of consent.
Ryan’s Behavior Might Have Been Because Of Teenage Impulsivity, But That Doesn’t Excuse Him Either
The situation was complicated by Ryan’s MDMA use.
He offered several excuses for why he allowed Stacey to drink the drug-laced vodka that wouldn’t fly in court, yet could be chalked up to him being sixteen and not having a fully formed prefrontal cortex.
Teenagers are notorious for making stupid, shortsighted decisions for the reasons Ryan gave for his behavior.
Ryan and Stacey were both guilty of crimes that occurred unintentionally, again bringing up questions of whether their situation was what the law was meant to address.
Ryan didn’t set out to drug Stacey. He didn’t actively give her a spiked drink, but failing to tell her that his bottle had alcohol mixed with MDMA came out the same.
The bottom line was that she took drugs she didn’t know she was taking, and that’s not cool, to say the least.
Yet Ryan’s failure to warn her wasn’t borne out of malice.
He was thinking like a typical sixteen-year-old who interpreted Stacey saying she wanted to have fun as her consenting to the use of MDMA rather than realizing the potential consequences of failing to disclose the drugs before she drank from that bottle.
As far as I could tell, he wasn’t intending on giving her the drugs so he could take advantage of her, but does that matter?
The law said it didn’t, but again, context is important and should be taken into account.
All the Moving Parts Meant The Jury Deadlocking Was Inevitable
Law & Order: SVU Season 26 Episode 15 is one of the few modern episodes that had a courtroom aspect.
I’m glad it did. All too often, the courtroom stuff gets the short end of the stick so that Benson can chase victims down and give inspiring speeches.
This case was doomed from the start.
With all these moving parts to evaluate before the jury could decide who was guilty of what, there was very little chance that everyone would see eye-to-eye.
There was enough ambiguity in this case to allow people to have different points of view, and deadlocking was really the only option.
Although Carisi could retry the case, the defense attorney was justified in saying it was over. Why put the taxpayers through that expense again when it’s not likely the next jury can come to any more of an agreement than this one did?
The Ambiguity Is What Made Law & Order: SVU Season 26 Episode 15 So Brilliant
One of the things I loved about the earlier seasons of Law & Order: SVU is that it didn’t force ideas on the audience.
Instead, it showed an arrest and a court case and let us decide for ourselves what was right.
Sadly, that nuance has been lost for a while, but this story made up for it.
I don’t know what I would have thought if I were on that jury. The only thing I know for sure is that intent is as important as the other criteria for criminal charges. Context matters — or it should, anyway, and this episode drove that point home.
Random Thoughts About Law & Order: SVU Season 26 Episode 15
- Stacey’s situation was sadly ironic. It seemed like she left her hotel room because her husband, in his drunken state, practically raped her, only to get into this mess.
- Finally some real Fin scenes! Fin is in the background in way too many episodes lately.
- Bruno’s backstory was interesting, though again, I’m surprised Benson didn’t bring up her own history when he shared his.
Your turn, Law & Order fanatics. What did you think of Law & Order: SVU Season 26 Episode 15?
Hit the comments with your thoughts, and don’t forget to vote in our poll to rank the episode.
Law & Order: SVU airs on NBC on Thursdays at 9/8c and streams on Peacock on Fridays.
Watch Law & Order: SVU Online
Law & Order: SVU Season 26 Episode 15 Offered A Messy Case With Few Clear Answers, Harkening Back To The Show’s Best Days
What a messy case! Law & Order: SVU Season 26 Episode 15 left us with more questions than answers. Our review!
Law & Order: SVU Season 26 Episode 14 Mostly Gave Us Exactly What Made This Show Popular Years Ago
Law & Order: SVU Season 26 Episode 14 finally went back to a winning formula from years ago to tell a compelling story. Our review!
Law & Order: SVU Season 26 Episode 13 Round Table: Was Benson Being Reasonable?
Our Law & Order Season 26 Episode 13 Round Table team debates whether Benson was being reasonable during Velasco’s big case.
TV Fanatic is searching for passionate writers to share their voices across various article types. Think you have what it takes to be a TV Fanatic? Click here for more information and next steps.
The post Law & Order: SVU Season 26 Episode 15 Offered A Messy Case With Few Clear Answers, Harkening Back To The Show’s Best Days appeared first on TV Fanatic.
Source: TV Fanatic
