By it's fourteenth season, "Law and Order" was beginning to creak at the joints. The stories didn't decline but the casting was off and some of the performers seemed older and less animated.
This episode, though, is enough above the average to trump the increase in the series' weaknesses.
Briefly, a man (Coster) is arrested and convicted of two rapes and murders. He freely admits to killing some fifteen other women but won't reveal the whereabouts of the bodies. His defense attorney is a young woman from Legal Aid who is sufficiently creeped out by the slimy killer that she resigns from the case and is replaced by a fast-talking Macher (Chaplin) with little experience in serious crimes. He's a young guy out to make a name for himself and leave his underpaid position for the Arcadian paradise of Wall Street.
But he's not the huxter he seems to be. The killer tells McCoy that he has already shown Chaplin the stacked-up bodies of the missing victims. Chaplin claims that the canon of ethics doesn't allow him to reveal the location, not even when McCoy charges him as an accomplice to murder. McCoy wants the victims' location to bring closure to their families. He points out, reasonably enough, that the killer has already been sentenced to death and a violation of confidentiality would help the families and hurt no one, including Chaplin himself, whom no bar would penalize. All Chaplin has to do is open up, and the jury will almost certainly find him not guilty.
Chaplin refuses to violate the canon of ethics, is found guilty, and goes to jail.
It's an interesting episode because of the question it raises. Is the law, as it stands, absolute? Or should certain of its rules, under exceptional circumstances, be broken if the breaking results only in good and not harm? The more general question, of course, has to do with social norms in general. How much tolerance should we extend to those who choose to live a life style different from our own -- should they be allowed to "break the rules" or be forced to conform. How about legalizing the recreational use of marijuana, or allowing gay marriages? Would we rather be McCoy, who is willing to bend, or Chaplin, who is not?
This episode, though, is enough above the average to trump the increase in the series' weaknesses.
Briefly, a man (Coster) is arrested and convicted of two rapes and murders. He freely admits to killing some fifteen other women but won't reveal the whereabouts of the bodies. His defense attorney is a young woman from Legal Aid who is sufficiently creeped out by the slimy killer that she resigns from the case and is replaced by a fast-talking Macher (Chaplin) with little experience in serious crimes. He's a young guy out to make a name for himself and leave his underpaid position for the Arcadian paradise of Wall Street.
But he's not the huxter he seems to be. The killer tells McCoy that he has already shown Chaplin the stacked-up bodies of the missing victims. Chaplin claims that the canon of ethics doesn't allow him to reveal the location, not even when McCoy charges him as an accomplice to murder. McCoy wants the victims' location to bring closure to their families. He points out, reasonably enough, that the killer has already been sentenced to death and a violation of confidentiality would help the families and hurt no one, including Chaplin himself, whom no bar would penalize. All Chaplin has to do is open up, and the jury will almost certainly find him not guilty.
Chaplin refuses to violate the canon of ethics, is found guilty, and goes to jail.
It's an interesting episode because of the question it raises. Is the law, as it stands, absolute? Or should certain of its rules, under exceptional circumstances, be broken if the breaking results only in good and not harm? The more general question, of course, has to do with social norms in general. How much tolerance should we extend to those who choose to live a life style different from our own -- should they be allowed to "break the rules" or be forced to conform. How about legalizing the recreational use of marijuana, or allowing gay marriages? Would we rather be McCoy, who is willing to bend, or Chaplin, who is not?