Friday, February 17, 2012

"Obscene" SVU

As I was watching this episode of Law and Order, I immediately saw that there were multiple ethical dilemmas.  First, Danny was said to have been influenced by BJ to commit this crime, when in reality, there are multiple reasons he could have done this.  He was a teenager therefore very easily influenced by others (BJ), which explains the pictures, but does not explain the rape.  He did that on his free will, and that is certainly punishable.  Yes, his mother was part to blame for being so ridiculously insane about the whole Jessie thing to begin with, and he was rebelling, but rape is not a proper way to rebel for should it be acquitted.


Secondly, the mother (Ms. Spencer) shooting BJ was very shockingly able to get away with this.  She did not kill him, but that was certainly her goal.  I do not understand how a person can blatantly try to kill someone without being punished.  Yes, she was trying to help her son and keep other families from BJ's harsh words, but is this a good enough reason to shoot someone?  Would the situation have been different if she had actually killed him? Was the jury unable to reach a decision simply because they did not like BJ, or was there really some merit behind their decision?


Plato says, “A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the highest virtues of a good citizen."  This applies to both situations because both mother and son broke the law, and therefore should be punished.  However, this statement, "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws," seems to make it okay.  This is how Ms. Spencer got away with her crime, and also the sole reason BJ's show was still on the air.  His radio show was a form of free speech, and no matter how many people didn't like it, there was no way to take it away from him.  


This doesn't mean, however, that BJ was a good person.  This also doesn't mean that Danny was a bad person.  Danny made a mistake but owned up to it.  He, the better person, was punished while his mother (the seemingly evil person in this case) got away.  In both cases, the verdict seemed to be decided upon simply because of the people they were up against in court.  Jessie was more innocent, therefore won.  In the other case, BJ was seen as a bad person, and even though Ms. Spencer was also a bad person, she got away because her flaws were overshadowed by BJ's seemingly worse flaws.  The law is very apparently flawed, but with all the different scenarios out there, there is no concrete way to make it perfect and just for every single situation with even the slightest discrepancy of the law. 

No comments:

Post a Comment