Istatymas ir tvarka: Specialiuju tyrimu skyrius Contrapasso (1999– ) watch online HD

As usual on this show the dialog, acting, direction, everything else was great. Unfortunately, there seems to be a rule that every case Olivia Benson handles must end with a conviction. It's the same formula that fifty years ago had Perry Mason never take on the case of a guilty person.

Spoiler: A man winds up convicted of an aggravated rape that happened twenty years ago based on the victim's testimony and a poem the victim wrote when she was in high school. No forensic evidence. Just words.

I realize that the scenario would be more appropriate for a sketch on Monty Python than for my favorite show on the air. Even the best of writers have off days, I guess.

I have been a huge fan of the entire "Law and Order" franchise since the mid-90s and SVU was my favorite of its various incarnations. That was until Mariska decided to use the show's preferred time slot as a personal soapbox from which to preach her "Women are always helpless victims while men are always unspeakably hideous pigs" blather. Okay, despite the downward plunge this series took when Chris Meloni departed(and Richard Belzer and Dann Florek subsequently retired), it was still worth watching for the occasional clever scripts and unexpected twists. However, as soon as Mariska became an executive producer and decided to flex her apparent man-hating muscles, coupled with her embarrassingly ignorant or, more probably, intentional disregard of the law, to jettison entertainment value in favor of unending sermonizing, the series sunk to previously unimaginably levels. But tonight's forced, contorted episode finally hit absolute rock bottom. Having practiced law for 40 years, let me assure you that the plot point of tonight's episode - that a prosecutor would even pause to consider filing a 20-year old forcible rape charge on the word of a woman who had just been arrested for committing and admitting a vile, unspeakable act of mayhem redefines the term, "suspension of disbelief." Sorry, Mariska, advocating for women's empowerment is an admirable, commendable enterprise, but using a prime, network slot to preach your personal, prejudiced views to a (previously) captive audience is unforgivable. Sorry to kiss one of my very favorite programs goodbye, but, when my subconscious reaction to the final scene of an episode is to immediately lunge for the shower, I know the shark has just taken a giant leap. And by the way, I don't know of anyone who could care less about whether Olivia keeps Noah or not.

While Mariska Hargitay is dealing with a personal crisis at home, Kelli Giddish and Peter Scannavino catch a truly gruesome case involving the castration of Peter Fitzgerald.

It's a powerful motive,but on examining it closely how in the world could Fitzgerald not have recognized one of the students that back in his high school teaching days not have seduced. Granted these women, Betsy Beutler, Jeannine Kasper, and Kathleen Munroe are 20 years older, still it doesn't track. And after losing the family jewels, why would he care about disclosure of his romping through the female student bodies back in the day?

On the personal note Mariska Hargitay is being threatened with having Noah's adoption case reopened. This episode also introduces Brooke Shields playing (gasp) Noah's birth grandmother. She'd do a few episodes.

Too many problems with the story line.

I actually looked it up and since they wrote it to go after the guy for first degree, there is no statue of limitations. But we're basing that on cock shells and a poem? And what about the girl that claimed this? She's golden on the castrastion? That's undisputable unlike her so called poem. What..it gains creditability bc the wife now feels gilted he's always gone after younger women? Ok, yes under the law he committed statutory rape...he admitted it and all 3 of them fell for him and got pissed bc he was seeing each one of them. What better way for scorned women to get back at that lover ehh? I never really paid attention to the credits but those of you about Mariska and her agenda... I have to agree. Shame on the liberal mindset, because that is close minded.

Well, this was certainly one of the most graphic premises the show has had, which is saying something considering the subject matter of the series, but it really missed the mark. It sort of excused violent behavior with the ruling, and did not do anything to address how women should rebound from the heinous crimes done to them. Retribution is not the answer, legal action is to punish criminals.

SVU has been woefully uneven in the last several seasons and the show reaches something of a nadir here in a pathetically predictable presentation.

SVU finds a man with his genitals sliced off in a hotel; he is identified as Jason Karr and three women seen in the hotel or its vicinity the night of the assault are tracked down; their evasiveness about their whereabouts makes them suspects and when SVU checks further Olivia Benson and company find the three women were schoolmates who were part of a poetry class under Karr. And it gets worse; Karr's own evasiveness gives away he knows why he was castrated, and when the three women are busted for Obstruction they come forth saying they were sexually violated as students by Karr. The one twist - an ironic term here - comes when the ringleader tells of being penetrated when Karr put himself atop her armed with a corkscrew and threatening violence should she resist; what sinks Karr is when his youthful wife - subjected to the same pick-up lines the three women received - shows a poem in a student magazine authored by the primary victim.

The guilt of Karr is telegraphed almost by the end of the first act, and it's been an increasing problem with the series, the poor quality of the writing and resultant pathetic predictability of the plots. The show established itself (notably during the 285-episode Ted Kotcheff era) not only by the strength of the cast (as one reviewer notes the absence of Christopher Meloni and retirement of Dann Florek and to a lesser extent Richard Belzer has hurt the show's casting quality; Peter Scanavino really doesn't cut it and Kelli Giddish is decent but unspectacular) but also with the wildly creative writing with twists and complications akin to The Twilight Zone Meets The French Connection; the good episodes of recent such as the Season 19 opener are solid but don't capture the engagement of the show's apex, and the increasing number of inferior episodes drag the series down more and more. One reviewer scathingly notes the insulting preachiness of episodes since star Mariska Hargitay assumed more of an executive producer role (here it shows in Raul Esparza's childish rant of a closing argument, the kind of whiny delivery made by someone knowing he's lost the argument), and that definitely needs to stop.

The only thing that salvages an episode otherwise unwatchable is the debut of series semi-regular Brooke Shields and the return of Peter Hermann as attorney Trevor Langan. The on-screen interaction of the real-life husband-wife tandem of Peter and Mariska is always enjoyable to see and here they face the potential crisis that Olivia's adopted son Noah has a grandmother who'd covered her tracks for years but now is in town - and appears at Olivia's very door. Though her scene is brief, Shields manages to convey a striking balance of ladylike, motherly innocence with the malice akin to classic TV villain Fred Johnson, haunting the life of the series protagonist even when unseen.

Olivia naturally is taken aback by this development, to where she lapses into a surprising burst of accusatory anger at Trevor that makes her disturbingly unsympathetic; Olivia should know better than this and Trevor apologetically makes sure any action against Noah will be resisted.

This subplot will drive the series for the time being, but it still needs to clean up its weaknesses of poor storytelling.

We love SVU, but this episode was too predictable, and didn't even make a whole lot of sense. This is understandable with a show as old as SVU, as recycled and pieced-together plots eventually resurface, but still enjoyable. Here are my problems with the whole thing, though...

1)These girls were like 16 at the time, and one of them even admits to returning willingly to his house after being seduced there before. Does she have no will power or mind of her own? Gee, my counselor or teacher is so powerful that I have to ride home with him or drive over to his house again, to argue with him about our affair, so he can rape me again. Maybe I am being cynical, but this is also a problem in real life. 16 yr. old girls do not get the same sympathy from me as a little child being molested by a caretaker or something. Now, as a dad, I might be furious with such a teacher for doing this with my daughter, but people of this age need to take responsibility for themselves. People at 16 are driving cars, marrying with parental permission, working jobs, dying in wars(in the past and across the world), having abortions, having kids, acting in Hollywood movies made for adults, etc. Many of these teens are banging half their school's football team and throwing themselves at older men. Is this REALLY the same thing as an adult harming a prepubescent child? I think these cases need clarification and a distinction between sex with older teens and sex with kids who can't even understand or consent to anything. These girls just seem like the types who are now accusing Bill Cosby. Yes, he was sleazy, but WHY were you in that situation repeatedly to begin with??? You can't be that dumb.

2) The F****** statute of limitations. Did I TOTALLY MISS SOMETHING HERE??? I thought they mentioned a statute of limitations early in the show, then threw it out for the court case. I'm assuming this was considered first degree? Because NY has a 5 yr. limitation on any other degree of rape case.

3) Too tidy for an ending. What did they convict him on? A poem(that could have been about anyone or anything) and the word of some girls from decades ago?

4) The punishment DID NOT fit the crime. Come on. This guy got more punishment than most people do for actually torturing and eating people. He had his balls cut off, lost the ability to reproduce and be a man, and was humiliated for life and put in serious jeopardy with his health, mental state, and a ruined manhood or family potential. Based on the flimsy evidence, should he really be sent to prison on these charges, after being castrated by women in a hotel with a steak knife? I thought he had paid enough. Seemed more like a feminist 2017 announcement or fantasy to me than a likely reality or ending.