"Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" Juvenile (TV Episode 2002) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
You have to have the lines drawn somewhere
bkoganbing21 June 2013
It's a powerful performance from Shane E. Lyons that highlights this SVU episode about a 12 year old and a 14 year old who commit a murder, robbery, and rape of a terminally ill cancer patient. Lyons plays a poor pathetic kid who gets caught in a frightening jackpot.

Society and the criminal justice system establishes arbitrary ages where you deal with criminals and victims as adults and juveniles. You have to draw the lines drawn somewhere. But there are always exceptions.

12 year old Connor Paolo is ahead of his normal development. He's the leader and a budding sociopath. It takes the SVU squad sometime before they realize he's the leader.

And he's leading poor 14 year old Lyons into this horrible system. You look at him and how backward he is and you want to scream at the television just look at this kid.

Yet it's Paolo who is ticketed to juvenile court and Lyons tried as an adult. Stephanie March wants to plead him out, but her boss the Bureau Chief Judith Light is inexplicably hardnosed on the issue. It's the weakness of the episode, why is she not seeing what everyone else is?

Some real bad choices by Lyons's mother and the mandatory sentence laws put this kid in a frightening jackpot. This is a haunting episode from SVU.
27 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
An episode that's far from juvenile
TheLittleSongbird23 September 2020
Quite the opposite. The first half of Season 4 proved to be a more than solid one with almost all the episodes ranged from good to superb ("Chameleon" and "Dolls" being the standouts for me), with the only disappointment being "Disappearing Acts" as far as the previous eight episodes go. "Juvenile" was one of those episodes on first watch that left a big impression on me in that it made me very sad but also very livid, which 'Special Victims Unit' often did very well in doing but this case on first watch really stuck with me.

On multiple re-watches, done not just because of the emotional impact, Donnelly and the performance of Shane E Lyons but also to make more sense of the verdict, "Juvenile" still has that effect. It is not quite an outstanding overall episode, it nearly was though as most of the episode actually was a couple of shortcomings aside up to a certain point. A certain point that has always underwhelmed me. Overall, "Juvenile" is very good.

"Juvenile" has always struck me as an emotional episode, the legal-oriented portions are incredibly thought provoking and when at trial it really becomes hard-hitting. The procedural elements also intrigue and are realistic, with great chemistry between Stabler and Olivia like in little moments such as their reactions when put off by Warner's findings when eating. The first half does engage and is never too obvious, but it's the second half with its wide mix of emotions that elevates "Juvenile" to an even better level.

Absolutely loved Donnelly here and like her very much as a character, in all her appearances Judith Light played her so well. She has some great lines, especially the cat reference that makes one worried about them for a while after. The only thing that wasn't plausible about her here was how hard-nosed she was about whether the perpetrator should be tried as an adult which considering the evidence would not have been realistic. Lyons really wrenches the gut as Jeremy and it was hard to not feel for him. Stephanie March shines too, there are a number of times where she says nothing and just reacts to what another character says and does and tells so much with her face. It was clear that the case meant a lot to Cabot.

The script is intelligently and tightly crafted while it's a solidly made episode and hauntingly scored. The acting is very good, especially from Lyons and Light.

Connor Paolo less so, his performance could have had a good deal more subtlety and been less obvious. With the role being played so coldly, it makes one angrier about the outcome of the case.

Which was the Achilles heel of "Juvenile" for me. One of the few outcomes of early 'Special Victims Unit' that left me livid and questioning the competence of those involved, it didn't strike me as realistic on first watch and it still doesn't. Am aware that it does happen from time to time but still.

Bottom line, very good episode and superb for most of it until the for me infuriating ending. 8/10
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Thoughts about the decision to try as an adult and the verdicts
markthurman-4422822 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
If I am reading a couple of other reviews correctly, I think there may be some confusion about why Bureau Chief Elizabeth Donnelly (played by Judith Light) chose to question the 14-year-old defendant Jeremy Brice (played exceptionally well by Shane Lyons) so aggressively in court. It appeared to me that the decision to try Jeremy as an adult came from Donnelly's boss, the unseen District Attorney, and that Donnelly was merely (albeit aggressively because that is any attorney's responsibility) following the D. A.'s order.

As for the highly-charged final scene, it seems to me that Jeremy's mother was entirely to blame for refusing to take the deal that was offered to her son's defense. The mother failed to recognize: (1) the high degree of likelihood that her son would be convicted; and (2) the consequences in terms of sentencing that would accompany guilty verdicts in her son's case. Since he was a willing participant in the robbery, and since the other crimes (rape and murder) occurred during the commission of the robbery, and since he was tried as an adult (whether rightly or wrongly), the sentencing was necessarily going to be very severe if he were found guilty on multiple charges, which he was. Both Assistant D. A. Alexandra Cabot (played to perfection as always by Stephanie March) and the boy's defense attorney (played by Illeana Douglas) recommended that the mother take the deal to ensure a much lighter sentence for her son. Some other reviewers seem to think that the court system was the culprit in this boy's life being completely ruined by the sentence. Perhaps the mother's decision to not accept the deal was simply the writers' device for making the episode's ending so tough for the viewer to accept. I don't think it was realistic for the mother to think her son would be found not guilty given his level of involvement in the horrendous crimes against the helpless victim, especially given that he was being tried as an adult.

Despite what I perceive to be a flaw in the story in order to maximize the emotional energy of the ending, I still consider this to be an exceptional episode and give it nine stars. I wanted to add these comments as an alternative to some of the other thoughts I have read here.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Best dramatic episode from SVU
cameronbatesjdpers1 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Most SVU episodes do not make victims out of the the helpless. Usually, the SVU detectives and DA made sure that the people who didn't deserve being punished didn't.

The actor who played the overweight, socially out placed and mentally immature Jeremy Brice did so with the skill that should earn him an Emmy Award. You couldn't help but sympathize for him, and the detectives and DA knew this kid was basically innocent. But the end will absolutely leave you with you jaw dropped and saying: "You gotta be kidding me!"

The actual killer in the episode is a cold, methodical kid, but he is a bit of an over-actor. (Think William Shatner at age 10.)

The sad part is that this kind of injustice happens more often they people want to believe. It's a question of social commentary: A DA Office that feels it's more important to wrongly convict and send a 14 year old to prison for life instead of sending him to juvenile court. Image over justice.
20 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Don't understand
Wesklepp19 February 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I think jury were a bunch of Idiots and stupid. Zach clearly admitted doing the crime on the stand. Yet the other kid gets blamed. WTF kind of justice is that. Zack is a sociopath in the making. The end of the episode made no sense
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Double Standard
coreycitn6319 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
A few years ago Law & Order did a similar episode Killerz where two young girls murdered a little boy and got a slap on the wrist. Granted this case was more savage but the older boy was also a bit mentally challenged and followed the orders of the sadistic younger boy but was sent to an adult court and got a practical life sentence in jail. It showed the hypocrisy of the writers.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed