LAW and ORDER, SVU. Olivia and Elliot are loudmouthed, over emotional, driven by emotion and ego, and should never have been allowed to be on the force. To laugh at Olivia and say that she is kind of "passionate" is saying that police persons are supposed to do their job based on circumstantial evidence, emotion, and ego. I can't believe the amount of lame lies that most of the detectives come up with on this show. The amount of abuse of power, lying and accusing innocent people who happen to know the actual criminal, using any trick or lie imaginable to trick someone into confessing. The fact remains that even the police psychiatrists call most police reports "the most elaborative works of fiction there are" and the amount of people who are convicted based on those reports is unconscionable. There used to be a saying about "innocent until proved guilty" that is supposed to be their attitude. Instead they should say "convicted unless proved innocent" because that seems to be the attitude of the police. The fact that they are trying to "make a case" out of nothing is the reason that DNA evidence has proved thousands of people innocent that have already been tried and convicted in the press and therefor in the court. After all, the idea that somehow convicting innocent people makes up for the ones who are guilty and weren't arrested is ignorant, but that seems to be the attitude of the police shows like this and in the minds of the average public, since shows like this teach them to be ignorant of the law. Innocence hasn't become more guarded since we have already found the court system to be consistently wrong by a steady percentage. For instance, how many people believe that O.J. Simpson murdered his wife years ago? He proved to the nation that in the United States one gets as much justice as they pay afford. Poor people or I should say anyone who can't afford large legal fees are going to jail unless a technicality happens. People, especially the police, complain that the criminals are released on technicalities. If the police did their jobs and didn't convict whoever was available at the time for trumped up charges, then, they wouldn't need technicalities of law. I hear the average conservative accuse the American Civil Liberties Union of being sympathizers with criminals, communists, etc. It would be fairer to criticize the police for being enemies of the constitutional law. "If they can get away with it" is not supposed to be jurisprudence. That is what criminals are accused of. The "ends justifies the means" ideology is what the bad guys are supposed to be rationalizing to themselves. When the police have to make up a crime in order to convict someone who they "believe" guilty of a different crime, and the judge and prosecutor let that happen, then, our system is corrupt. There wouldn't have to be rules to protect the innocent if the ability to go power mad and abuse the authority given them didn't happen on a regular basis. Anyone in the court system admits the idea of having a lawyer appointed to one's self by the court has been proved to be a joke since most people in the public defenders offices are overbooked and they merely make a pretense of actually giving the defendant a defense. Some of the police actually try to ignore of forget to read a suspect their rights from the card they are required to carry in their pocket and read to them. That card is called the Miranda/Escobedo warning. Most people don't realize that law came about from innocent people who were in prison who weren't read their rights, who weren't given proper jurisprudence and who, from a prison cell, changed our law and for instance, Ernesto Arturo Miranda, who was what is known as a "jail house lawyer", an inmate who goes to the law library and reads his actual rights, filed writs against the court and won. Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years imprisonment on each charge, with sentences to run concurrently. Because of the police not arresting him using proper procedure, he not only changed the law, he was released from prison for several felony counts. He admitted to things under duress and was never allowed an attorney before questioning, the same way you hear the police on "Law and Order" act like they are angry when a suspect "lawyers up" and act as if it is a bad or wrong thing. That prevents the police from otherwise extracting evidence under illegal means. The thing that most police organizations don't want you to know is, that the inmates who do research the actual law in their case end up going free as the court system can't prove the guilt of that inmate without legal improprieties that get swept under the rug during their day in court at the whims of a judge or in the case of the police illegally arresting or questioning someone. Could it possibly be that hard to follow the law of the same court they are an officer of?