I just caught the 4th season, 6th episode of Boston Legal last night on the DVR, which had aired November 6th; The Object of My Affection. I’ve been a fan of this series since it was in the process of spinning off from The Practice (and it’s far better). The reasons I’m a fan are numerous, and I neither have the time nor inclination to go into it much. The biggest reason is David Spade, of course, and last night he delivered another amazing closing argument.
So; a mother’s daughter is bludgeoned to death with a vodka bottle by rich boyfriend, who through fancy legal footwork, gets off — even though the premise of the story is that he did indeed do it. Mother later walks into [ex] boyfriend’s office, announces she’s there to kill him, and puts one between the eyes and is delighted about doing it. That was one thing about the story I liked. She was never portrayed for one second as anything but perfectly satisfied — indeed proud — of her act of vengeful killing. A previous episode dealt with the whole setup, and one of the sub-plots in this one was the actual trial.
First time I have ever seen someone on TV correctly argue away the "inconsistency" apparent between being against the death penalty by the state, yet squarely for just revenge carried out by victims themselves, as was carried out in this case. It was brilliant and moving, and I wish I could find a clip of it. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. We’re talking clear, coherent casting of important distinctions between individual action and action by the state. Catch it if you can.