History Headscratchers / LawAndOrder

** That may be true in real life, but it's pretty clearly established that whatever the case for their real-life counterparts, in the ''Law & Order'' universe, SVU ''does'' handle sexually-charged murders and other murders that relate to SVU crimes; there's just no way they could be taking cases outside their purview for over two decades without a single person (including antagonists who are willing to take them to task for every perceived fault) so much as commenting on it. Plus, there's at least a few early episodes of the original where the detectives handle rape or kidnapping cases where no one is killed (or any homicides happen after they've already been assigned the case, rather than them being assigned the case because it's a homicide) that ''would'' be SVU cases regardless. In-universe, the most likely explanation is that in the early years of the original, there wasn't yet a designated unit for sexual crimes, so those crimes were handled by the local precinct until SVU came into existence (which, incidentally, mirrors the Meta reason for this).

** That may be true in real life, but it's pretty clearly established that whatever the case for their real-life counterparts, in the ''Law & Order'' universe, SVU ''does'' handle sexually-charged murders and other murders that relate to SVU crimes; there's just no way they could be taking cases outside their purview for over two decades without a single person (including antagonists who are willing to take them to task for every perceived fault) so much as commenting on it. Plus, there's at least a few early episodes of the original where the detectives handle rape or kidnapping cases where no one is killed (or any homicides happen after they've already been assigned the case, rather than them being assigned the case because it's a homicide) that ''would'' be SVU cases regardless. In-universe, the most likely explanation is that in the early years of the original, SVU didn't exist yet, so those kinds of crimes were handled by the local precinct until SVU was formed (which, incidentally, mirrors the Meta reason for this).

** That may be true in real life, but it's pretty clearly established that whatever the case for their real-life counterparts, in the ''Law & Order'' universe, SVU ''does'' handle sexually-charged murders and other murders that relate to SVU crimes; there's just no way they could be taking cases outside their purview for over two decades without a single person (including antagonists who are willing to take them to task for every perceived fault) so much as commenting on it. Plus, there's at least a few early episodes of the original where the detectives handle rape or kidnapping cases where no one is killed (or any homicides happen after they've already been assigned the case, rather than them being assigned the case because it's a homicide) that ''would'' be SVU cases regardless. In-universe, the most likely explanation is that in the early years of the original, SVU wasn't formed yet at that point in time, so those kinds of crimes were handled by the local precinct until SVU came into existence (which, incidentally, mirrors the Meta reason).

** That may be true in real life, but it's pretty clearly established that whatever the case for their real-life counterparts, in the ''Law & Order'' universe, SVU ''does'' handle sexually-charged murders and other murders that relate to SVU crimes; there's just no way they could be taking cases outside their purview for over two decades without a single person so much as commenting on it. Plus, there's at least a few early episodes of the original where the detectives handle rape or kidnapping cases where no one is killed (or any homicides happen after they've already been assigned the case, rather than them being assigned the case because it's a homicide) that ''would'' be SVU cases regardless. In-universe, the most likely explanation is that in the early years of the original, SVU wasn't formed yet at that point in time, so those kinds of crimes were handled by the local precinct until SVU came into existence (which, incidentally, mirrors the Meta reason).

** That may be true in real life, but it's pretty clearly established that whatever the case for their real-life counterparts, in the ''Law & Order'' universe, SVU ''does'' handle sexually-motivated murders, particularly given that not even the most antagonistic higher-ups in that series ever bring this up as a problem, even when they're listing off the unit's flaws (in fact, some of the brass even assign these cases to SVU on occasion). Plus, there's at least a few early episodes of the original where the detectives handle rape or kidnapping cases where no one is killed (or any homicides happen after they've already been assigned the case, rather than them being assigned the case because it's a homicide) that ''would'' be SVU cases regardless. In-universe, the most likely explanation is that in the early years of the original, SVU wasn't formed yet at that point in time, so those kinds of crimes were handled by the local precinct until SVU came into existence (which, incidentally, mirrors the Meta reason).

** Even if the real-live counterpart to SVU doesn't handle homicide cases, it's pretty clearly established that in the ''Law & Order'' universe, SVU ''does'' handle sexually-motivated murders, since not even the most antagonistic higher-ups in that series ever bring this up as a problem, even when they're listing off the unit's flaws (in fact, some of the brass even assign these cases to SVU on occasion). Plus, there's at least a few early episodes of this series where the detectives handle rape or kidnapping cases where no one is killed (or any homicides happen after they've already been assigned the case, rather than them being assigned the case because it's a homicide) that ''would'' be SVU cases regardless. In-universe, the most likely explanation is that in the early years of the original, SVU wasn't formed yet at that point in time, so those kinds of crimes were handled by the local precinct until SVU came into existence.

** Even if the real-live counterpart to SVU doesn't handle homicide cases, it's pretty clearly established that in the ''Law & Order'' universe, SVU ''does'' handle sexually-motivated murders, since not even the most antagonistic higher-ups in that series ever bring this up as a problem, even when they're listing off the unit's flaws (in fact, some of the brass even assign these cases to SVU on occasion). Plus, there's at least a few early episodes where the detectives handle rape or kidnapping cases where no one is killed (or any homicides happen after they've already been assigned the case, rather than them being assigned the case because it's a homicide) that ''would'' be SVU cases regardless. In-universe, the most likely explanation is that in the early years of the original, SVU wasn't formed yet at that point in time, so those kinds of crimes were handled by the local precinct until SVU came into existence.

** Even if the real-live counterpart to SVU doesn't handle homicide cases, it's pretty clearly established that in the ''Law & Order'' universe, SVU ''does'' handle sexually-motivated murders, since not even the most antagonistic higher-ups ever even try to put a stop to it (in fact, some of the brass even assign these cases to SVU on occasion). Plus, there's at least a few early episodes where the detectives handle rape or kidnapping cases where no one is killed (or any homicides happen after they've already been assigned the case, rather than them being assigned the case because it's a homicide) that ''would'' be SVU cases regardless. In-universe, the most likely explanation is that in the early years of the original, SVU wasn't formed yet at that point in time, so those kinds of crimes were handled by the local precinct until SVU came into existence.

* As for his personal relationships, it's not like Jack ever hid them or that there was ever anything salacious or unethical about them implied; as he himself once said, he just found some of his coworkers more intellectually and more emotionally stimulating than the women he met at the gym. Sure, I've no doubt any of his opponents might have tried to make some hay out of his past, but I assume that Jack would done what he did when Claire confronted him about them that time -- simply told the truth that those relationships were entirely above board, consensual and nothing to be ashamed of. If anything, the voters would probably have appreciated his honesty and frankness. An unmarried man dating his assistant(s) might not be the most proper thing to ever occur, but neither is it the worst sexual indiscretion ever performed by a politician (and to link to the point above, a recent US President was elected in spite of video footage of him all but admitting to acts that are at very least sexual harassment, if not outright sexual assault).

** Even if the real-live counterpart to SVU doesn't handle homicide cases, it's pretty clearly established that in the ''Law & Order'' universe, SVU ''does'' handle sexually-motivated murders (given that even the higher-ups never have a problem with it and even assign SVU murder cases on occasion). Plus, there's at least a few early episodes where the detectives handle rape or kidnapping cases where no one is killed (or any homicides happen after they've already been assigned the case, rather than them being assigned the case because it's a homicide) that ''would'' be SVU cases regardless. In-universe, the most likely explanation is that in the early years of the original, SVU wasn't formed yet at that point in time, so those kinds of crimes were handled by the local precinct until SVU came into existence.

** Even if the real-live counterpart to SVU doesn't handle homicide cases, it's pretty clearly established that in the ''Law & Order'' universe, SVU ''does'' handle sexually-motivated murders (given that even the higher-ups seem to be on board with this). Plus, there's at least a few early episodes where the detectives handle rape or kidnapping cases where no one is killed (or any homicides happen after they've already been assigned the case, rather than them being assigned the case because it's a homicide) that ''would'' be SVU cases regardless. In-universe, the most likely explanation is that in the early years of the original, SVU wasn't formed yet at that point in time, so those kinds of crimes were handled by the local precinct until SVU came into existence.

* It should be on the Upper West Side, just north of Central Park. The real life 26th and 28th precincts are next to each other there. 27th was absorbed by those two as part of a consolidation following the widespread introduction of patrol cars; there were more, smaller precincts in the years when patrol was almost entirely by foot. Now, most of the crimes that the detectives on the mothership series actually investigate take place in that area. That's where the territorial aspect comes in; detectives are assigned a case because they're from the detective squad of the precinct where the crime took place. But once they begin investigating, they can actually go anywhere in the city to question suspects/witnesses as needed. The detectives on the case are THE detectives on the case, regardless of how far afield the investigation takes them; they don't hand off the entire case to another squad just because a witness lives in Brooklyn and saw something while visiting their cousin in Manhattan. That said, a) they do play a bit loose with the actual precinct boundaries (which makes sense considering the precinct doesn't actually exist) and b) Law & Order was (and SVU still is) filmed at a studio on Chelsea Piers further downtown. (As a side note, the ''SVU'' detectives are the sex crimes squad for all of Manhattan, even if they work out of the also-fictional 16th precinct on the show, and the Major Case Squad from ''Criminal Intent'' had city-wide jurisdiction for cases that fall under their special purview; they actually do work out of the main headquarters at 1 Police Plaza.)

** Olivet calls [=McCoy=] and demands that Cutter be suspended. What I was more confused by is that him attacking Cutter was necessary to prove that he was a danger to himself or others. What about [[spoiler: the nine murders he committed]]?
*** Those didn't prove that he was a danger while restrained at the mental institution. To be forced to take the drugs, Cutter had to prove that, even locked down as Applebaum was, he was still a danger without them.

** The voters might have also been in the mood for an 'outsider' figure, someone not seen to be as part of the establishment system. As we saw in 2016, the candidate with the backing of the political establishment, the wealthy and the big-business community isn't always the candidate that's guaranteed to win the election, and for all his flaws [=McCoy=] certainly has more to recommend him on his side than You-Know-Who did.

** In Doylist terms, it's so that they could keep around one of the most popular and long-lasting characters on the show as long as the actor was still willing to play him. In Watsonian terms... well, it's definitely very unlikely and probably wouldn't be very easy for him to win an election, but [=McCoy=] was good at his job and could be very convincing (as you'd expect a lawyer to be), and he became DA around about a time where big business and very rich people weren't incredibly popular due to the financial crash, meaning that the voters might have been willing to vote for someone seen as a bit of an iconoclast and relatively anti-establishment figure. Less likely figures have won elections. It also doesn't hurt that he initially became DA as an interim (probably because the person who appointed him decided he was the most qualified person at the time) and the one time we saw him contest an election his opponent ended up being kneecapped by a big scandal, making him look like the better option for the voters by default. All the money and powerful backers in the world won't save an obviously doomed candidate.
*** If anything his [[CowboyCop Cowboy District Attorney]] practices would endear him to a lot of people, sort of like [[Film/TheDarkKnight Harvey Dent]], someone not afraid to confront criminals as part of the Giuliani-era New York. It's not necessarily what he ''does'' so much as what the people ''see'' him do. He has a high number of convictions and makes some truly good cases, so its not inconceivable that, [[AntiHero personal issues aside]], he could be popular enough to stay on as long as he did.

** As for his personal relationships, it's not like Jack ever hid them or that there was ever anything salacious or unethical about them implied; as he himself once said, he just found some of his coworkers more intellectually and more emotionally stimulating than the women he met at the gym. Sure, I've no doubt any of his opponents might have tried to make some hay out of his past, but I assume that Jack would done what he did when Claire confronted him about them that time -- simply told the truth that those relationships were entirely above board, consensual and nothing to be ashamed of. If anything, the voters would probably have appreciated his honesty and frankness. An unmarried man dating his assistant(s) might not be the most proper thing to ever occur, but neither is it the worst sexual indiscretion ever performed by a politician (and to link to the point above, the current US President was elected in spite of video footage of him all but admitting to acts that are at very least sexual harassment, if not outright sexual assault).

*** Also, the ultimate issue isn't about how sympathetic the character is, it's about whether they had the mental capacity to form intent. The kid in "Sheltered" was literally brainwashed to the extent where he couldn't form rational thought; he got off on an insanity defense and was sent to a psychiatric hospital. The killer in "Captive" knew what he was doing and killed out of jealousy. The reason his previous trauma was even relevant was because the defense was trying to use the same brainwashing argument, using the fact that he didn't escape when he had a chance as proof; finding out that he simply didn't want to go home pretty much destroys the argument.

*** If anything his [[CowboyCop Cowboy District Attorney]] practices would endear him to a lot of people, sort of like [[Movies/TheDarkKnight Harvey Dent]], someone not afraid to confront criminals as part of the Giuliani-era New York. It's not necessarily what he ''does'' so much as what the people ''see'' him do. He has a high number of convictions and makes some truly good cases, so its not inconceivable that, [[AntiHero personal issues aside]], he could be popular enough to stay on as long as he did.

** Both represent both aspects. The police enforce the ''law'' and maintain social ''order''. The DAs interpret the ''law'' in order to proceed with the case in court and represent the ''order'' of the criminal justice system which enables disputes and transgressions to be resolved by an official process rather than through vigilante justice or blood feuds. The police are just identified with "law" because their part in the proceedings comes first, and it's a bit stylistically effective, dramatic and efficient to flash up "LAW" when identifying them and "ORDER" when identifying the DAs rather than flashing up "LAW AND ORDER" for both.

In the episode Release (17-8) the detectives and the DA office seemed to really push the boundaries of believability by charging a No Celebrities were harmed version of Girl’s Gone Wild founder Joe Francis with rape and murder. In the case they seemed to be targeting him even when He had an airtight alibi for when the murder went down. Later after they found the real killer she claimed he raped her turning it into a he said she said case, it later turned she signed a contract giving consent and there was no footage of her resisting him. They let her off with man 2 and charged him with murder because he sent his friend to sleep with a girl which he had written permutation to do. They later bring in the mother of another girl he sleped with (both were in exchange for footage of the girls stripping despite the they fact they had signed consent forms) and killed herself. The main argument against him seemed to be that he was sleazy which might be true, but none of that is a very solid rape case and absolutely in no way is murder. The defendant’s attorney seemed to be the only one to relies it as the judge and jury sided with the DA.

In the season 5 episode “Seed” the cops investigate a fertility doctor, finding evidence he defrauded his patients with a treatment that didn’t work, telling them they were pregnant then staging fake miscarriages to explain the lack of a baby. On the way, they uncover a different fraud, that for other patients seeking in vitro fertilization, he’s used the same sperm donor dozens of times despite promising clients that a given donor is used only four times. After the lawyers take over abd go through some difficulties, they find the donor was the doctor himself. At that point they say they can’t prosecute him for fraud because though it’s despicable, there’s nothing illegal about using his own sperm and all he promised the patients was the donor would be anonymous. They have to struggle to persuade one couple who wanted to use the husband’s sperm to come forward, because apparently they were the only ones defrauded. So here’s the problem: what about the promise each donor would be used only four times? Wasn’t that fraud? What about the fraudulent fertility treatment the cops found early on? Not as startling as the sperm donation, but it did lead to a woman’s death that opened the episode. Why can’t they prosecute him for any of that?

*** To quote a different show, "The courts are like dice. They have no memory." The jury system does not consistently hand out the same verdicts when presented with the same case, much less cases as different as that. This is convenient for dramatic purposes on the show, but it's also pretty much true.

*** I imagine after Karlin's outburst in the DA's office, her behavior in the courtroom is going to get a lot more attention.

** As for his personal relationships, it's not like Jack ever hid them or that there was ever anything salacious or unethical about them implied; as he himself once said, he just found some of his coworkers more intellectually and more emotionally stimulating than the women he met at the gym. Sure, I've no doubt any of his opponents might have tried to make some hay out of his past, but I assume that Jack would done what he did when Claire confronted him about them that time -- simply told the truth that those relationships were entirely above board, consensual and nothing to be ashamed of. If anything, the voters would probably have appreciated his honesty and frankness.