Law & Order

When is torture justified?



That's what is debated numerous times in this hard-hitting episode. In an era when our sense of justice is so demanding, when our moral values are so challenged, the issue of police and authority brutality has become an issue. How much do you torture insurgents to get them to talk? Dick Wolf and his writing team have taken a controversial topic that no one has all the answers to, and made an impacting hour of television out of it. A man kidnaps a child in order to use her life to blackmail her father into assisting him in robbing a bank. When Fontana finds the perpetrator, he uses excessive force (dunking the man's head in a toilet) in order to extract the girl's whereabouts, which then leaves the defense spinning their moral and ethical wheels over the issue of whether or not this evidence should be allowed in the courtroom. For once the judge is on the prosecution's side, and the attorney from the defense, Randy Dworkin, secretly agrees with McCoy -- that this scum should rot in prison the rest of his life.



Dworkin is one of those attorneys I wish we could see more of, but his rare appearances ("Chosen," "Bounty") make him all the more likable when he does pop his balding head into the courtroom. He's known for making outrageous defenses and literally driving McCoy out of his mind with frustration and incredulous disbelief. I really love the actors' chemistry, the kind that makes you realize that they detest one another in and out of the courtroom, and having them meet on middle ground with a mutual agreement in this episode makes it all the more dynamic. But the issue they're debating is one that every family in the country has discussed over the dinner table at some point -- where do the moral, the ethical, the good guys, draw the line? Do we dunk heads in toilets? Do we use electrocution to enlist cooperation from terrorist suspects? Even if it's universally agreed that the bad guys deserve to suffer, and sometimes must in the interest of humanity, where does it end?



It was a very courageous episode, that leaves viewers a lot to chew on.

Can we throw out the Constitution?

That is the crux of this episode. When is it ok to ignore the right of the defendant? Is it ok to dunk someone's head in a toilet and hold a gun against their forehead when another person's life is in danger?

The human side of me wants to say, "Yeah! Shoot 'em in the butt for all I care! As long as that girl's home safe, it's all good. Anything goes." The legal side of me says that there is a Constitution that is supposed to protect "innocent" people from being forced to confess before they have been found guilty in a court of law.

On the one hand, I agree with what McCoy said. The Constitution should be a sword for innocent victims. If a person's life is saved by a forced confession, then so be it. On the other hand, I agree with Alex. We have a Constitution that is the "supreme law of the land," above any other law. We are supposed to follow it. If we throw out parts of it, the whole thing fails, and the democratic republic we live in will implode.

So, was Fontana right in using heavy-handed methods to extract a confession? I don't know. But that is what's truly great about this episode. It leaves the viewer thinking to himself/herself, "What would I do if I was in that situation?" And it leaves the viewer forced to work it out for himself/herself.

Once again, Law and Order manages to take a case that is familiar and make it intense. In this episode, McCoy, Fontana, Assistant DA Borgia, and eccentric attorney Dworkin fight amongst themselves, all of them seeking justice- both for the innocent and the guilty.

One thing I really admire about Law and Order is that it never delves into the character's social lives, instead it creates just as much excitement by focusing on them tackling cases that affect them as professionals and ultimately as people. I mean, afterall, we all have problems and it's comforting to know that when I tune in to L & O that I am going to see Jack McCoy battling for justice (and struggling to follow the rules and be a better man than the people he prosecutes) and not watching Sam Waterston iron his socks or argue with his character's exwife.

I think that Fontana rocks indeed

Sure that he may have gotten out of line

But loved it when he dunked the guy's head in the comode now wouldn't you?

And McCoy argued to him about the constitution

For once the judge agrees with the prosecution

Glad that happened and also glad that the defense attorney agreed with McCoy

Not a big fan of lawyers at all

But at least McCoy is showing a more human side of him

That is what I love about him being a prosecutor

He is indeed human

The whole torture method was great. Who on earth wants their head in a gross toilet? This episode was better than the last. The bank robbery at the beginning was great. At least the bad guy got killed and not the security guard. The father at the hotel was very obvious and the cops should have seen that coming.