Law and order sometimes feel intimate.
Since its first appearance in 1990, the franchise’s “torn cases from headlines” has pioneered a telescope that spreads to other crime dramas.
Crime-based cases are not only popular but also allow law and order to show the weaknesses of our judicial system. But sometimes, it feels more like exploitation than social commentary.
There is no doubt that borrowing inspiration from real life has done a lot of benefits
Feeling changed life, especially law and order: SVU.
In the early days, SVU was the only show that took victims of sexual assault seriously.
Of course, most of the victims are cis-white women who have not done their sexual work, so there is some work in the series to be the advocacy tool that should have been.
Still, real-life survivors are attracted to it because it talks to them in ways that other TV shows have never had before.
Primitive law and order did something similar before there was something like SVU.
It is not focused on the focus of sexual assault survivors, but many cases include them, and when such cases land on their knees, police and lawyers try to get justice.
This is an important task and should not be denied.
Law and Order have always been a socially conscious performance and we need TV to speak out.
Crime dramas can clarify injustice, corruption and other serious problems that cannot receive sufficient call time.
I even think that novels are stronger than news reports because people see what goes wrong when they see their favorite fictional characters suffer losses and why.
Still, sometimes the later seasons are not with me. Something feels out of balance and is almost exploitative.
Stories based on real events are sometimes too recognizable
The best plot of any Law & Order franchise member puts a unique spin on their story to categorize it as a novel.
Sometimes, stories are composites of several real-life events, drawing bits and pieces from each terrible news story and creating a fictional story based on all of them.
This approach works well because it allows real-life tragedy to inspire stories rather than based on any one event.
While this seems to be split hair, it is an important difference. Stories inspired by all kinds of real crimes are indeed fictional.
They don’t go back directly to an event, so the story hardly hurts real-life survivors.
Is the case based on a specific case necessary to be exploitative?
Sometimes a case is so terrifying that a franchise can only make a point by borrowing freely from real life (and therefore, “stand out of the headlines”).
For example, Law and Order: SVU Episode 26 Episode 9 is based on the case of Gisele Pelicot. Real-life cases tell of a woman who gasses her husband and invites a man he meets online to rape her while she is in a coma, which is shocking and disgusting.
The only change in SVU changes is to make PERP and victims rather than French – something they have to do since Benson had no jurisdiction abroad.
However, no benefit is provided to anyone who makes it completely unrecognizable to SVU.
This case has become notorious worldwide, so no matter how much SVU is trying to hide, people have a chance to recognize it.
More importantly, after Gisele Pelicot realized what happened to her, she advocated for other survivors. One of her reactions outside the court after she won the case sounded very similar to what Olivia Benson said:
Finally, I think of unknown victims, whose stories often remain in the shadows. I hope you know we shared the same battle.
-Gisele Pelicot (translated from French to English)
Given that Pelicot herself is a champion of other survivors who have given up her privacy for their stand up during the trial, it’s hard for me to say that SVU exploited her tragedy in any way.
Furthermore, this story is a genre of advocacy-based plots that SVU often encountered before the series failed.
The risk of nasal telling stories is the risk of exploitative
There is a good line between providing a fictional restatement of a traumatic event and using it for recreational purposes.
I don’t think any show in the franchise intentionally takes someone’s trauma as pure entertainment.
Most plots, even bad plots, have a greater meaning for them
But, over the past few seasons, it sometimes feels like a tragic story happened to the writers and put a happier ending on it. This must hurt real-life victims because it is the opposite of their real-life experience.
When will the law and orders take action in cases of real victim death?
It’s hard for me to die in real life stories, especially those who are sensational, to the point where they rework on multiple shows.
For example, Law and Order and Law and Order: SVU is based on the plot of the Gabby Petito case. Petito has been dead for several years and her family has never really closed since her killer ended her own life instead of facing justice.
I have to wonder if stories like this reopen the old wounds and why we need two in the franchise.
I think Law and Order: SVU Season 26 Episode 6 did a great job and did tragic justice. Furthermore, I have been a big fan of Graham Patrick Martin since his major crime era.
Still, the franchise resolves this disturbing murder in Season 21 Episode 3. Is it necessary to use the same story twice?
I suspect a family like Petito’s family has received a lot of peace. When the news spreads the deaths of those they love, they don’t grieve in private.
But that doesn’t prove that the wound is reopened to tell a story on TV.
If anything, this will make things worse.
The moral issues surrounding storytelling in real crime are related to larger stories about this phenomenon
Police reform advocates and those who are negatively affected by the criminal justice system are often on franchise, especially Law & Order: SVU.
On the one hand, SVU surpasses star Mariska Hargitay’s TV show. Hargitay’s foundation is dedicated to empowering real-life survivors. She also pushed for legislative reforms, such as ensuring rapid testing of rape kits.
These are undoubtedly good things, and SVU’s core mission also helps survivors feel competent.
Nevertheless, both Law & Order and SVU show that heroic police officers have gone beyond their responsibilities to help deliver justice for victims and too many real-life victims of crime, which is unrealistic.
Shows such as Law & Order and SVU are designed to show how police behave.
In an ideal world, every real-life policeman who deals with survivors will put in more effort to support the victim, and every homicide detective will refuse to rest until the victim and his family are justice.
However, many people do not, and reform advocates sometimes find it more difficult to portray police as heroes to make necessary changes.
The worry is that the fictional policeman looks great, which will lead people to believe that it is already a reality.
It’s an independent conversation that goes beyond the scope of this article, but the question of whether these shows become exploitative is relevant.
The phenomenon of law and order inspired, but what are your ideas?
The purpose of tearing a case from the headlines is to the police who care so much that they always put more effort into the victims.
The law and order phenomenon means educating, inspiring and enhancing survivors, especially SVU.
How do you view law and order fanatics?
Does the franchise require any changes to avoid the meaning of the authorized person?
Click on the comments with your ideas.
Law & Order & Law & Order: Thursday’s SVU AIR on NBC starts at 8/7C and on the stream on Friday’s Peacock.
Watch online laws and ordering
Watch Law & Orders: Online SVU
