![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Numb3rs 5.18: 12.01AM
I didn't like the basketball storyline. Larry screaming and throwing chairs? And cheating ? Really? The only bits I liked were Charlie getting totally out of his depth. Because, really? Most rubbish sports coach ever. Stick to the mathematics, Charlie.
I loved David and Colby's game, and Nikki refusing to play it right (that's kind of a Charlie thing to do, actually), and teasing David about calling Colby. So, I wonder is Colby really on a fishing trip, or is he undercover? Either that, or he and David really are secretly married.
I liked the main plot, however. It was less clichéd that the evidence didn't come through in time to save Curtis Senior from execution. And there wasn't really an easy answer: if his original confession was what condemned him, what was the moral difference between it, if it had been true, and his telling Don that he had sixty-something bodies on his hands? Legally, yes, but morally? It was interesting to see Don, the occasionally rule-bending conviction-at-any-cost cop, fighting to vindicate the criminal, while Robin the lawyer was going all-out for his death.
Different beliefs on the validity of the death penalty are more what Alan's thoughts on differences making a couple stronger than something as major as religion, although of course Don's beliefs are going to influence what he thinks. But I didn't get the impression that it was a recent change. It came across more as coming from his own experience of having killed in the line of duty, plus probably Alan and Margaret's beliefs. And I can see his distinction between killing to save a life and killing after everything is over.
Also, oh, Don, is it so very Don Eppes to disagree with the death penalty when you catch murderous criminals for a living. That story of the first time he shot someone, and simultaneously knowing that it was what he was meant to do, and if he were wrong, he'd blow his own brains out? Oh, Don, you poor darling.
I can see Robin's point as well, because I believe, theoretically, that if you deliberately murder someone, you forfeit your own right to life, but practically there are so many problems with the death penalty. However, she was clearly letting the fact that she had known the murdered AUSA affect her judgement, especially when she taunted Curtis with 'I hope you suffer'. Don wins the maturity points in this one. He's really grown the last series or two. But I don't dislike Robin for freaking out or wanting Curtis dead. It shows she's human.
How cute were Don and Robin holding hands walking down the street, and Don pretending to chicken out of talking to the chef because there are sharp knives in kitchens and he's left his gun in the car? And I liked both of them assuming that the other one has no experience of death row and trying to shield them. And Don trying to calm Robin down when she freaks out at Curtis, and him being so patient and calm throughout. And Don grabbing Curtis's son and checking him for weapons, there is something so sexy about competence.
The last scene with nothing but the music on the audio was very touching, because of it being intercut with Curtis' son being arrested, so you knew that the father's sacrifice was wasted. And Don's thoughtful face and Robin's remorseful one, and the shot of the two of them walking out into the sunlight.
Although that last shot shows how messed up the timeline was for this episode. Solving a case in the length of a basketball game? Really?
no subject
But stiffing the waiter because of a screw-up in the kitchen is really lame. Waiters live off of tips, if the service was fine you shouldn't shortchange the waiter for something outside of his/her control. In the US, waitstaff don't even make anything like minimum wage (they're exempt). They literally depend on those tips to make up their salary, they aren't "extra." So I was with Robin on that one, and Don should know better. He doesn't have to say anything to the chef if he doesn't want to have a confrontation, but he shouldn't penalize the waitstaff either.
shot of the two of them walking out into the sunlight.
Except that it should have been shortly after midnight. CSI does that all the time. They get a crime and it's night, then magically it's day even though only minutes have passed.
if his original confession was what condemned him, what was the moral difference between it, if it had been true, and his telling Don that he had sixty-something bodies on his hands?
I'm confused. If his confession had been legit there wouldn't be an issue. I don't think you can separate the moral and the legal questions. If you put someone on death row it had damn well better be for the crime you say it was. Not a crime "everyone knows" he committed, which is how he appears to have gotten there in the first place. No one wanted to check that closely because they all knew he was guilty. Jr. didn't kill anyone else after that (until the psychiatrist) but what if he had? Then Sr. would be in jail and executed for something he didn't commit and Jr. would be free to kill again and again. Being caught for the right thing matters. /soapbox.
I think it was Without a Trace who did the best version of the death penalty episode. They had evidence that exonerated the guy in prison and the scene ends with the team sitting around the phone waiting for it to ring to say he'd been pardoned. Or not. We never know how it turns out.
The West Wing had a pretty good episode, too, I think, though their point was about the death penalty in general.
And I still think Robin was being unfair to Don.
I'm kind of surprised Don's anti-death penalty though. I figured he'd be all for it. Then again, he has sometimes been the closet liberal.
Randomly: I like the way your tags are organized.
no subject
The timeline of this episode makes exactly zero sense.
It wasn't that 'everyone knew' Curtis had committed sixty murders, it was that he told Don that he had. And I'm sure Don believed him, and if you had twelve Dons in a courtroom then Curtis would end up back on death row.
I think there has to be a difference between legally right and morally right, otherwise how could you say that a particular law is wrong? The point is that even though Don knows that Curtis is a murderer, he hasn't been tried for his murders, and so the state shouldn't be executing him.
no subject
I think he said he tipped 12%, which is below the normal amount. The standard is 15% and many people do 20%.
The timeline of this episode makes exactly zero sense.
Yes. Once again. If they'd just hire a continuity person...
It wasn't that 'everyone knew' Curtis had committed sixty murders, it was that he told Don that he had.
Right, but I thought your question was about the trial. I don't think he said at trial that he'd committed 60+ murders, he said that later. And since he did say it, those murders should have been investigated and prosecuted and he probably would have ended up on death row anyway. I'm really not sure why they didn't pursue the other murders. All cops want to close out case files and I know at least with Bundy a lot of cops from various jurisdictions talked to him in the hours before his death trying to close cases where he'd been a suspect. But this show as never that strong on reality.
I think there has to be a difference between legally right and morally right, otherwise how could you say that a particular law is wrong?
I phrased that badly. I meant in this case that you can't separate the moral from the legal. There are laws that might be considered immoral.
The point is that even though Don knows that Curtis is a murderer, he hasn't been tried for his murders, and so the state shouldn't be executing him.
Which is a point I agree with. I think the show was maybe trying to raise some of those questions, if a man is to be put to death for a murder he didn't commit does it matter if he committed other murders (for which the death penalty may or may not apply)? But Don aside, I felt like the show came down pretty clearly on the side of Robin. Who cares if he committed this murder he committed (or claims to have committed) other murders and I think that's a really dangerous line of thought.
Also, why wasn's Gina Gershon's character in more trouble? I'm not sure she did anything illegal but she was a cop who did know the wrong person was in jail and didn't do anything about it even though it was her case. Even if there aren't legal consequences there should have been professional ones. Instead she basically said "sucks to be you" to Don's team and walked off.
no subject
I respectfully disagree. You can't really say "Don aside," given that he's one of the leads and one of the show's most popular characters. *g* Also, Don has been known to break rules to catch criminals--the fact that he's going by the book, and unwilling to let someone die for a crime they didn't commit (whatever other horrendous things they may have done) speaks VOLUMES.
I didn't feel like the show came down on Robin's side at all--I felt that between her outburst and the conspiracy committed by the female cop with Curtis Jr., we had a pretty clear picture that killing Curtis for his other crimes (as opposed to this specific murder) was neither legal nor moral.
no subject
I didn't find Don all that convincing and I was on his side. But reasonable minds and all that. Robin was passionate, Don was ... placating Robin? It just didn't work for me.
and the conspiracy committed by the female cop with Curtis Jr.,
But there were no consequences for that. She walked away free and no one seemed to really care about the guy that Jr. killed.
no subject
Well, they arrested Jr, so I imagine he'd be tried for the murder of the psychiatrist and the cop wouldn't get away scot free.
no subject
::snickers:: So true.
and the cop wouldn't get away scot free
But if that were true, I would think Don's team would have arrested her. Instead we literally see her walking away. And honestly, I'm not sure if she's broken any laws or not. I would think you could get her on something but I'm not sure she'd actually get charged or that it would stick.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
It's not unreasonable. But because you do have to infer it I think it weakens the case. There's never even the slightest suggestion that something will happen to her, the viewer has to make it up entirely on his or her own.
I think a stronger case can be made that nothing happens to her, especially given Don's apparently ability to do whatever the hell he wanted with impunity for years until McGowan finally and very temporarily put a stop to it.
no subject
no subject
My favorite scene in the whole episode. Wow.
no subject
no subject
no subject