Why does a TV series last 24 seasons? I think this is because the show lives by the motto of “make them care.” Unfortunately, the latest Law & Order aptly titled episode, “Truth and Consequences,” didn’t stick with me. The episode crams convoluted plot twists into a short amount of time, resulting in a confusing narrative filled with morally ambiguous characters. The result is a bland, joyless viewing experience. Let me explain.
“Truth and Consequences” – “Law and Order”, pictured: Michaela Watkins as Judge Madeline Bennett.
One of the goals of Season 24 is to make characters more likable by exploring their personal stories. The show has been successful so far, focusing on Riley’s brother, Lt. Brady’s son, and Sam’s sister, who is a perpetrator of intimate partner violence. This week, however, a professor was beaten to death with a (golf) club in his home. Why? The professor’s husband, New York State Supreme Court Justice Madeleine Bennett, was the apparent intended victim.
The murderer, Thomas Norton, was a student active in pro-Palestinian campus protests. He should also clerk for Judge Bennett. Unfortunately, when she learned of his political views, she dismissed him as clerk. Angry that the judge’s behavior threatened his academic career; he went to confront her angrily. Judge Bennett was not at home, but the husband was, and he died.
The investigation begins with the housekeeper. She discovered the body and witnessed a man walking out of the house. He wore a hooded sweatshirt with a watermelon logo. The flag is a symbol of Palestinian support. However, the housekeeper never saw his face. CCTV cameras never captured his face. Detectives returned to campus thirty minutes before the murder and discovered video of Norton walking across campus with Rojas, a Venezuelan student. The district attorney forced Rojas to testify against his will because a bloody sweatshirt collected as evidence was ruled inadmissible. Rojas’ testimony was needed to corroborate the timeline, and the sweatshirt was Norton’s.
“Truth and Consequences” – “Law and Order”, pictured: (left) Hugh Dancy as ADA Nolan Price and Odelya Halevi as ADA Samantha Maroun. .
Norton’s lawyers got Rojas to admit that attending the student protests violated the student code of conduct, putting her student visa in jeopardy. In classic courtroom parlance, Norton’s attorney turned to the jury and asked Rojas, “Didn’t you testify because the DA’s office promised to help you with your visa?” Price responded with a vehement “Objection!” The judge dismissed Price. Roxas must respond to the ruling. Rojas said she hopes the district attorney can assist. When redirected, Price asked Rojas if his office had promised her anything. Roxas said through tears, “No. In fact, I think you just screwed me over.
“Truth and Consequences” – “Law & Order”, pictured: (left) Stephen Kunken as Sam Bennett, Mehcad Brooks as Officer Jaron Shaw, and Red Scott as Officer Vincent Reilly.
During the course of the investigation, Lieutenant Brady learned that Judge Bennett had lied about her location on the day of the murder. Because of this lie, Brady wants to jail Judge Bennett for 72 hours for obstruction of justice, which she can do. District Attorney Baxter wouldn’t allow it because she was a newly widowed widow. However, the police knew this was true because she was a judge. In this episode, the mayor forces Baxter to ignore a subpoena he personally served, forcing Bennett to testify. Baxter told ADA Price “there was a change of plans” and directed him to offer Norton a plea deal. Price was dumbfounded, especially since Baxter offered no rational explanation for the change. Price stressed to Baxter that they had ruined the life of a Venezuelan student. If she is asked to testify in court, she will no longer be able to study in the United States.
“Truth and Consequences” – “Law and Order”, picture: (left) Michaela Watkins plays Judge Madeline Bennett, Bruce Altman plays Mayor Payne.
Without sweatshirt evidence and questions about Rojas’ testimony, Price feared he wouldn’t win a murder conviction. Judge Bennett’s testimony is now crucial in determining Norton’s motive for coming to her home. Bennett offered no explanation and refused to testify. Price correctly pointed out the weaknesses in his case, as the victim’s spouse refused to testify. When Baxter confronted Bennett, she more adamantly refused to testify, without stating why. Baxter asked a mutual acquaintance of his and the judge why. She leaned over with a pained expression and said, “She had a skiing accident…”
Baxter serves a subpoena for Judge Bennett, a functioning opioid addict, which is a quick edit. So the mayor pressured Baxter to ignore the subpoena for the “greater good.” If Bennett’s drug addiction were revealed, her previous ruling would be called into question. Baxter reluctantly directed Price to offer a plea deal, which Norton accepted. He was sentenced to 12 in state prison. The episode ends with Judge Bennett thanking Baxter for helping her. Baxter replied: “I’m not doing this for you.”
I’m not naive. I know that Law & Order stories intentionally create flawed, even hateful characters in order to elicit strong reactions or as a critique of certain behaviors in society. However, they are usually criminals, not victims like Judge Bennett. She put her career and reputation before the justice she swore to seek. If the purpose is to portray a judge as an unlikable character, to highlight unbridled self-interest, or to address social issues such as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and prompt viewers to critically reflect on these aspects, the attempt fails.
“Truth and Consequences” – “Law & Order”, pictured: (left) Tony Goldwyn as prosecutor Nicholas Baxter and Michaela Watkins as Judge Madeline Bennett. Photo by Virginia Sherwood/NBC) @2024 NBCUniversal Media, LLC. all rights reserved
The purpose of telling a good story is to evoke an emotional response. “Truth and Consequences” left me cold and disliked the victim’s widow, Judge Bennett, the perpetrator, Michael Norton, and everyone in the DA’s office except Sam. While I acknowledge that the success of an episode is subjective, my experience suggests that the show failed to connect with its target audience, or at least with me. While my negative reaction may indicate that the producers succeeded in eliciting a strong response, what really matters is whether the story achieved its intended purpose. Unfortunately, I found myself needlessly sidetracked from the main goal of the story.
What did you think of this week’s episode of Law & Order?
Overall rating:
5/10
Lynette Jones