Unlike my previous posts on The
Good Wife and House
of Cards, both newer shows normally written about for
their plot twists and overarching narratives, Law and Order: SVU (along with the original Law and Order and Law and
Order: CI) is the go-to show when comparing procedural police/law
shows to reality. Studies
have analyzed the 15-season show’s accuracy of its portrayal of the legal
system and articles
have detailed how closely SVU has mirrored its ripped-from-the-headlines
stories.
This
week’s episode
entitled “Criminal Stories” featured a Muslim woman, Heba, who claimed that she
was raped in Central Park as a hate crime; after a journalist, played by Alec
Baldwin, exposes that Heba was not in Central Park at the time of her alleged
rape, it is discovered that the victim was really raped in the office of her
brother’s boss. The case goes to
trial and when the reporter realizes his error and writes a retraction, the
judge declares a mistrial because multiple jurors admit to reading the story.
This
case was based loosely on that of Tawana
Brawley, which was directly mentioned in the episode, although Brawley
fabricated her claims, while Heba was actually raped in the show. The episode highlighted an issue with prosecuting rape
cases, because as Detective Benson pointed out, victims of sexual assault omit
details of their crime 50% of the time when first telling police, due to
embarrassment and/or fear. As
such, the district attorney has a huge hurdle to overcome in terms of the
victim’s credibility. In this case
in particular, Heba deliberately faked a crime scene by rubbing mud on herself
as if she was actually in the park.
Although other evidence was found to corroborate the real story—an unrealistic, overwhelming
amount—it seems unlikely that this would be a
winnable case in real life.
(In the show, a plea bargain is reached.) Additionally, despite the lovely irony of Alec Baldwin as a reporter, a
sole journalist would probably not have as much impact in a real case as he did
in this one.