Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Scott Mayers

NBC's "Special Victims Unit" Discussion...

Recommended Posts

I think that this show, among its older relatives is one that attempts to cover real stories and issues through entertainment ....BUT is most worthy of discussion here in a political forum. [I think it could be its own subforum given its subjects are always relative to today's issues. ...or maybe a subsection on "Law & Order" or "Justice" or "Legal Issues" ??]

Anyways, I just caught up on my DVR for the latest SVU titled, "Part 33" (S20.E14 Air date Feb 7, 2019). In this episode, a cop's wife had killed her husband and attempted to defend herself as a victim of 'abuse' but admits of no physical nor sexual abuse in the least. The SVU unit though had become contentious within its ranks because some wanted to lie on the belief that this woman was justified in her action merely based on this cop's general known verbal abusive character. [the unit knew the cop and his wife] Some strongly disagreed given the form of indirect abuse is not valid as abuse in the eyes of justice.

I thought this episode pointed out something interesting about how many think that trusting women's accusations should be defaulted to, especially today in both Canada and the U.S. regardless of her apparent situation or of the male who is being accused. I wondered if anyone here has seen the episode (or suggest you watch it) and tell me which side of the different position you hold. The specific controversy is not merely about trust but about INDIRECT ABUSE. It is hard to catch this form even if it can actually be more devious in nature. So the question I'm asking in relation to this episode is this:

Should anyone be granted serious consideration of innocence for acting counter-abusive of one who is indirectly abusive? ...like strong verbal abuse ...or like enticing others to harm another intentionally, etc?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Should anyone be granted serious consideration of innocence for acting counter-abusive of one who is indirectly abusive? ...like strong verbal abuse .. 

I don't watch these sorts of shows at all myself but couldn't the cop's wife have just left the son-of-bitch?

Simply being an asshole isn't grounds for killing them.  It doesn't even really warrant being an asshole in return.

Quote

...or like enticing others to harm another intentionally, etc?

Enticement is already a legally recognized term that could include anything from luring people into sexual criminality to indoctrinating child soldiers.  Kids should be granted consideration for innocence in the sorts of examples I gave but not adults.

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, eyeball said:

I don't watch these sorts of shows at all myself but couldn't the cop's wife have just left the son-of-bitch?

Simply being an asshole isn't grounds for killing them.  It doesn't even really warrant being an asshole in return.

Well that was part of the debate in the show. The SVU staff were split on this. They always deal with sexual abuses, often of more women than men, and they knew this particular cop personally, knowing his attitude was somewhat like this. There seems to be a 'trick' with the plot too. The ones most strongly willing to lie on the stand defaulted to a sort of bias FOR women as a class. But this proves they are counter-discriminating against men because should they proceed. The lie was about his character and whether he was seen to ever be abusive with the truth being in the negative. This suggests they then believe a particular bias for any women in the relationship to be completely 'innocent' in all cases. 

That is, if this were reversed as a case, there would be no controversy. If a man killed his wife for being verbally or indirectly abusive in any way, and the man admitted that she never physically harmed her, the case would be quick to resolve in court regardless. 

So the show was presenting the present bias to have distinct 'trust' laws exclusively between the sexes where these don't have anything intrinsically distinct regarding their physical sex. Both can BE 'criminal' in mind and action but they only look at the statistic norms of which sex does more of what crime than the other to base their specific-sex laws in bias to the kind of crime the majority of that sex do. In reality though, the culture defines the qualities they accept ....such that men are larger and more physical, women are smaller and more vulnerable. But there can be a variety of role-differences if the partners on average chose those of variability without the stereotypical roles. The ones who choose the partners that fit to the stereotype that creates the imbalance should be cognizant that they contributed to the statistical imbalance of men being more abuse on average. So the women are as EQUAL at fault as well as the men for all kinds of crimes. And while this variation and acceptance is occurring now, why is the extremism occurring to favor women by default over men in law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×