LAW & ORDER: SPECIAL VICTIMS UNIT

HARDWIRED

10-21-2009 9:00PM

http://www.nbcumv.com/release_detail.nbc/e...timeschedu.html

A YOUNG BOY IS RAPED, AND THE SUSPECT LEADS TO A CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP IN FAVOR OF CHILD-ADULT RELATIONSHIPS.

After Eva Banks (guest star Rosie Perez) makes a shocking discovery about her son, Cory's (guest star Cruz Santiago) behavior at school, she takes him to the doctor, only to find out that he has been the victim of sexual abuse. Detectives Olivia Benson (Mariska Hargitay) and Elliot Stabler (Chris Meloni) come onto the scene and question the victim and his family. From the boy's frightened reaction when his stepfather, Thomas Banks (guest star Jim True-Frost), silences the investigation, it is clear to everyone in the room who the real perpetrator is. Detective Benson and Stabler are about to arrest the suspect when Thomas agrees to give up the leader of the largest pro child-adult relationship civil rights group in exchange for amnesty.

I was expecting Alex to be mentioned in the description...oh well can't win them all!

2 previews of HARDWIRED from NBC.


http://www.nbc.com/Law_and_Order_Special_V...s-love/1166849/

http://www.nbc.com/Law_and_Order_Special_V...dwired/1166822/

I love Rosie Perez! Loved the previews too. I can already tell that this is going to be an emotionally draining episode. Can't wait!

Wow, this looks good. Poor Elliot lol

It seems Canada has already seen Hardwired. And this writer thought it was pretty good. I hope he's right.

http://www.afterelton.com/TV/2009/10/law-o...-rights-episode

Wow, great acting in this one! I liked it and I'm glad those scumballs got what they deserved.

Really good eppy! I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Touches of Angels and Pandora, but it was fantastic, and the SVU I had grown to love over the years. Did you see that preview?! HOLY COW!

Not in this thread though...


ANDREA

This is definitely one of the best episodes of the season just like the previous one, Hammered. Alex is back, and she's tough and rough as she already is; Jeri Ryan returns and really deserved to be one of the best Defense Attorneys. I see more episodes with her in the upcoming future. Rosie Perez was simply fantastic.

Shame, Munch and Warner were absent; Fin had one scene; Glad TARU Moralez is back! It seems this was truly a Haung-driven episode.

Overall fantastic episode! Can't wait for Spooked, I'm spooked already.

I really enjoyed this ep! And as I have told Mad, I am really liking this season. Seems as though so far it's been getting mixed reviews from everyone, but I have been entertained thus far! To me, it certainly makes up for the crap of seasons 7.5-10!

This one was really good tonight though. I felt as though I was watching a show from the good ol' days.

Excited for next week, the ep involving Dickie, and the ep w/ Trevor (b/c I've missed him so!).

Great episode



The dream team is back.

Poor Elliot, always getting hurt...truthfully I'm getting rather sick of it! Writers, stop hurting my man!!!!

As for Alex, it was great seeing her but...to me she seemed rather bitchier then usual here. I know she's an Ice Queen but usually she never acted the way I saw her in this episode towards the Detectives as much. Could be residue of Paxton?

With Haung and the "big" announcement that he was gay, he just said it as if everyone knew, it wasn't a big reveal like I thought it would have been when it was announced that TPTB were going to out him.

Overall good episode, I enjoyed it and it did bring back the old seasons' aura. It has happened a few times so far this new season and I hope it keeps it up for the rest of the season.

Good morning Sunshine!

I liked this episode alot. Never been a big Rosie Perez fan but I thought she did a good job.

Huang was back, but he wasn't really Huang...he even looked odd to me...when is he and Olivia supposeed to hae the big blow-up?

Best part of the episode...the preview for next week!!..

I loved this episode. It reminded me of the older episodes. Rosie Perez was awesome in this. I found myself chucking quite a few times last night. First it was when Rosie's character told Olivia that she had some gangster in her. Olivia looked like "Damn straight I do!". Also when Olivia called one of the customers "Baby Raper". I wasn't laughing at the fact that he raped kids. I just found the way she said to be funny.



I 100% agree.

Like she said in the episode, "I finally managed to claw my way out of Appeals and you're giving me this cluster..." I think she's just adjusting to SVU cases yet again after a different assignment. She's been bouncing back and forth and I think she was probably looking for a simpler, more cut and dry case to start with. As for Huang, I like how they didn't make such a big deal about him coming out. BD Wong did a fine but wonderfully subtle job of expressing his frustration and anger with the case. Save for that court outburst..., but hey, even Munch has done that before.

It was a pretty solid episode.



Good morning to you too! Yeah, I don't know what happened to the blow-up either, but the case is already intense enough, they didn't really need any more drama. While I have mixed feelings about Porter and Liv, I do agree that sometimes, especially after some mediocre episodes, the best part is the preview of next week's.

So many things I loved about last night.

First of all...Rosie Perez...phenomenal job. And the little boy playing her son...equally phenomenal. I believe I heard on Twitter that this was that kid's first acting job. Amazingly talented.

"Good Morning, Sunshine." Oh, they KNOW we loved that line back in the day! So nice that they tossed it back
(it was like they were speaking directly to the fans...I was almost waiting for Mariska to look in the camera and wink!)

I loved Huang's presence in the episode..and really appreciated the way he 'came out' to the audience (it was obvious it wasn't supposed to be a 'big reveal' to his colleagues.) I liked that the writers didn't smack us over the head with it...it was subtle, done with intelligence.

Alex is back...but I agree with whomever said, she was a bit over the top. Alex was always a class act...a very distinct difference from Paxton. She seemed a little too angry, IMO.

Even Jeri Ryan as the defense attorney. Love her! She plays the part very naturally (who wouldn't want a Borg defending them! )

The storyline had a reasonable ebb and flow...and it seemed longer than usual (though, I thought the 'teaser' in the opening, seemed shorter. If anyone has TiVo and can figure out the actual minutes, that would be cool.)

Lastly...I said to my husband when it was over...I'm not sure if anyone pedophile charged with rape has tried to use the 'persecution of my orientation' defense, as they showed last night (hisgirl..are you there??)...but I bet we will, sooner or later.
The world really is that sick....

LoriOZ Posted Today, 11:35 AM
"Lastly...I said to my husband when it was over...I'm not sure if anyone pedophile charged with rape has tried to use the 'persecution of my orientation' defense, as they showed last night (hisgirl..are you there??)...but I bet we will, sooner or later.
The world really is that sick...."

A quick answer to the question is no. Nobody has used it and nobody will as a defense strategy at trial. A trial court is all about determining facts. Issues of the constitutionally of a law is a question for appellate courts. You do get to raise the issue in trial to preserve it for appeal but it cannot be argued as your defense. You could argued that the law was applied to you on an unconstitutional basis at trial since that requires facts to be determined. For example, there is a law that requires permits to have a parade/march and your group meets the requirements but the clerk refuses to give you a permit because your anti-abortion group wants to protest the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. But you can't argue that the state shouldn't be allowed to regulate free speech and you shouldn't have have to bother to get the permit.
The judge was wrong to allow the defense.

It was insane to allow that defense! The law is clear - YOU CANNOT RAPE, ESPECIALLY CHILDREN!


ANDREA

The only thing I kept thinking was, 'How the hell are they going to convince the jury that child/adult relationships are okay?' No doubt half if not 90% of the jurors have children or grandchildren. There is no way the defense will be able to convince the jurors that adult/children relationships are a beautiful thing. You would think the defense would have been able to come up with a better defense.

I thought it would be this episode as well but I think Neal Baer answered that it'll be in another upcoming episode, only thing is that I forgot which episode it'll be. I'm sure it's up there on his twitter...maybe ram will help or someone else who's keeping track

EDIT: Did anybody catch Alex when answering the phone in her office "Alexander Cabot"??
I thought that maybe I misheard but I got two emails from friends pointing that out so was wondering if anybody here catched it?

no it was definitely Alexandra Cabot...,maybe it was muddled so it sounded like Alexander, but she most definitely said "Alexandra Cabot."

Mary82 Posted Oct 22 2009, 01:57 PM
The only thing I kept thinking was, 'How the hell are they going to convince the jury that child/adult relationships are okay?' No doubt half if not 90% of the jurors have children or grandchildren. There is no way the defense will be able to convince the jurors that adult/children relationships are a beautiful thing. You would think the defense would have been able to come up with a better defense.

More importantly, why did the defense go with a jury trial? If they wanted to make the claim that the law was unconstitutional, they would have been better served with a bench trial. O'Donnell didn't seem to deny the facts as Alex would have presented them. Why bother going with a jury when his lawyer had to know that a jury would find him guilty?

I had hopes this one might be good from reading other people's reviews. But those hopes were dashed when I saw Mick Betancourt wrote it. He has not written a decent script. before This episode hasn't changed that.

There was no Munch.
Eva decided to ram her car in Mary's care because she was angry. This is not reasonable adult behavior. It does present a fairly stereotypical image of a Hispanic woman who has no control over her emotions and no problem using violence when she's upset. Later her story includes a husband who beat her, no job skills and the willingness to let another man have complete charge over her life. The picture doesn't cover everything that is frequently found but why make the character in that image. And then have her suddenly change at the end because she has money to do what she wants.
Why would the detectives talk to the two boys with their mothers sitting right there? What boy wants to talk about sex with their mother beside them? In the past we have seem them do better. Better to have mom watching behind the one-way glass so the kids can be honest.
What's up with Cragen referring to Elliot as an ADA?
Telling Eva a story to get around her to have Cory examined for sexual abuse should have come back on Cragen. Getting her consent to have Cory checked out for injuries from the accident is not consent to have the doctor test for STDs, etc. The police can't have a child examined without parental consent or a court order where there is no complaining witness.
The story line with the wrestling coach was not needed. The time could have been better spent on other things.
Olivia said they were sending the coach back to Baltimore for failing to register as a sex offender. But he violated New York law as well as Maryland law. It is a class E felony not to register in New York which allows imprisonment up to 4 years. Maryland can only imprison him for 3 years. They should have thrown him inn jail for 4 years in NY and then sent to Baltimore for another 3 years.
Corey tested positive for chlamydia. Why didn't the detectives request the parents be tested even if it was just to rule them out? In the past they have done so. Having Banks refuse to be tested would have been a better approach to showing he was abusing Corey. And just where did Banks get the disease?
Banks was too obvious as the molester.
Was there some point to Elliot sitting outside the Banks apartment all night other than to scare Banks? Unless Corey came out or called for help, there wasn't anything Elliot could have done.
If Eva was in denial, why should she believe Olivia's statements that her husband was the one molesting her son? When Olivia told her, there was no evidence against Banks. It was just Elliot's gut, which is not enough for an arrest. If Banks hadn't been the one, a case could be made that Olivia committed slander by accusing Banks without any evidence against him. Which could make an interesting episode on its won.
What was Olivia thinking when she got Corey to talk about who assaulted hi in the schoolyard? That was much too public a place to talk about that. She should have taken him somewhere more private.
Olivia was wrong about Eva being able to get her hands on Banks' bank account, although Eva didn't have to move out of the apartment. New York law considers as martial property anything acquired during the marriage whether it held jointly or only in the name of one party. But in order to claim the property as marital property, there has to be a matrimonial action (divorce, annulment or declaring the marriage void). Eva couldn't get money from Banks' account or sell the apartment until she filed for divorce or annulment AND got a court order allowing the action. No bank would give her access to her husband account without his consent. And that's assuming Banks didn't already own the apartment before he married Eva.
The return of Alex Cabot was not handled well. She just magically appeared again. There was a much better way to bring her back that would have correctly a lot of the legal mistakes in this episode. There is a guest ADA who charges Banks or O'Donnell. The defense makes the claim that the law is unconstitutional but doesn't contest the facts. Defendant is convicted and intermediately appeals the verdict. Alex has been working in Appeals and she gets the case because she has experience dealing with sex crimes. She and Larue argue the law before the Appeals Court which SVU hasn't done since season 1. Alex wins and the defendant goes to jail. But Alex needs to get back to persecuting and uses her win to get back to SVU, especially since the new ADA wants to get out of there. There would have been plenty of time to do it if the unnecessary story lines were cut from the episode.
I was happy to see Huang back finally but not happy with how he was used. Telling Cragen about Corey's likely abuse and talking to Corey at the hospital were fine. But after that it went downhill. There was no need for Huang's saying he was a gay man, especially in the middle of the squad room. It was just tossed out and didn't play a part in the story. It would have played much better if Huang had been interviewing Banks or O'Donnell when they claimed they were being persecuted like interracial couples or gays. It would have been more believable if Huang responded that they were nothing like him. Much more subtle and in keeping with Huang's character. Even more than Elliot, he does not bring his personal life into work.
The episode should have stayed with Banks as the defendant. The story line with O'Donnell was not needed. He should have come in to support Banks as someone who believed the same things. Maybe his group offered to pay Banks' lawyer fees in order to get their case before the Appeals Court. If they want to get the law declared unconstitutional, that's the way they have to go.
The use of Corey and Eva in a police operation like they did is not reasonable or likely. Too much could go wrong. Too much did go wrong. Alex was right to be angry that they even tried it.
Most people remove their dinner plates before serving dessert.
If O'Donnell is as good as a predator as he' made out to be, he should have sensed something was wrong. Eva's behavior was so off. She was obviously uncomfortable which should have made O'Donnell wonder what was up.
Olivia has watched video of children being raped but she “can't stand it” to watch people eating dinner. How does she manage to sit through stakeouts?
Eva stabbing her husband was ridiculous and unnecessary. Olivia and Elliot should have gotten chewed out over letting it happen in front of a review board.
Eva did need to be arrested. But it could have waited until morning. There was plenty for the police to do at the apartment. Having Olivia or someone else stay at the apartment and bring Eva in later would have been fine and better for Corey.
DAT wouldn't work if Banks had raised a fuss and wanted charges brought immediately. If I had been his lawyer, I would have insisted that she be arraigned immediately.
Once again, that pesky issue of Miranda rights being given comes up again. Elliot talks to O'Donnell without ever mentioning it.
Lawsuit time for O'Donnell against the NYPD for putting him in the cell when Olivia knew he was likely to be attacked by the other prisoners. And for doing nothing when he was attacked. They wouldn't have been quiet when they beat him.
There is a problem with the charges against O' Donnell. Possession of child porn is fine. But the claim of his being an accessory isn't right. Under NewYork Penal Code Section 20.0 explains an accomplice:
"[w]hen one person engages in conduct which constitutes an offense, another person is criminally liable for such conduct when, acting with the mental culpability required for the commission thereof, [he or she]… intentionally aids such person to engage such conduct.". "[w]hen one person engages in conduct which constitutes an offense, another person is criminally liable for such conduct when, acting with the mental culpability required for the commission thereof, [he or she]… intentionally aids such person to engage such conduct.”.
Under New York Penal Code Section 30 an accesory is defined as “[a] person who, after the commission of a felony, harbors, conceals or aids the offender, with intent that he may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, having knowledge or reasonable ground to believe that suc offender is liable to arrest, has benn arrested, is indicted or convicted, or has committed a felony”.
O'Donnell was an accomplice, not an accessory and was should have been charged with any crime Banks committed at his direction. That list should have gotten him more than 10 years. But it would have given Larue grounds to dismiss the wrong charge.
I have already raised the problem of not being allowed to raise a defense of unconstitutionality of the law under which you are charged.
Alex should have been raising objections right and left to Lareues questioning of O'Donnell. Politics and personal beliefs are not relevant testimony. O'Donnel is not qualified as an expert and can't offer his opinion on the effect of having sex on a child. Alex should have objected to the testimony instead of arguing with O'Donnell.
The testimony of O'Donnell's prior vitim should not have been allowed. It had no relevance to the case at hand. It was a collateral matter.
The testimony of Eva should not have been allowed. It had no revelance to the case since Eva had no first hand knowedge of her husband's relationship with her son or O'Donnell. And Larue could not impeach her own witness.
Why would Huang have brought Corey into court to hear Eva testify?
Why didn't Larue ask for a mistrial after Corey's outburst. No jury is going to forget what he said.
If Eva and Corey are from Florida, what were they doing in a New York homeless shelter?

Rosie Perez and Mariska Hargitay were competing for the worst acting award. They both need to go to Overactors Anonymous. Not every line needs to be stuffed full of heartfelt emotion. They were both over the top. No Emmy nomination material here.

Some people think this episode was harkening back to the good episodes in the earlier seasons. It did touch on a similar subject that was covered in Angels. But that is all the two episodes have in common. Angels is good dark Swiss chocolate while Hardwired is a artifical chocolate-flavored candy that leaves a nasty feeling in your mounth when you're done.