Review of 'Law & Order' 24.16 and 24.22
"Luigi Mangione" and A Prime Moral Quandary
Law & Order has been at the top of my must-watch television since it debuted on NBC in 1990. Here are my reviews of my two favorite episodes of its just concluded 24th season:
The "Luigi Mangione" Case
I don't think I've ever reviewed any Law & Order shows here. Season 24 was outstanding, and a good place to start. Episode 16 brought back its longstanding "ripped from the headlines" tradition with an ethically scalding tale based on Luigi Mangione's murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson in broad daylight in midtown Manhattan back in December. Of course, like all of Law & Order "ripped from the headline" shows, this one differs in many ways from the true story. If you're interested in what really happened, there are a myriad of factual accounts online. Law & Order was less interested in dramatizing all of those details than in getting at the crux of the life-and-death ethical problem that underlies both the true story and its adaptation on Law & Order.
Which is: are health insurance companies which deny claims by people in life-threatening conditions guilty in some sense of cold-blooded murder? Now let me make it clear here that I'm no friend of insurance companies. They do a great job collecting premiums and spending tons of money on idiotic commercials. But when it comes to paying out money for legitimate claims ... well, let's just say that's where they fall badly down on the job. And I say this after decades of fighting for justified claims for the cars that I drive and the home in which I live.
But does denial of such claims justify taking someone's life, aka murder? I'd say obviously not. The ultimate proper course of action regarding those kinds of cases is to take the company to court -- civil court, where the penalty if the insurance company loses the case is money. But then what about a case in which a health insurance company denies a justified claim which leads to a person's death?
That's the thrust of episode 24.16 of Law & Order. The hunt for the killer is obstructed by citizens who have their own, likely good, reasons for disliking the way they and their families have been treated by insurance companies. That part is fact. But, of course, the second half of Law & Order is the trial in the courtroom, which hasn't happened yet in the Mangione case.
I thought Law & Order handled that in a brilliant way. (And it was great to Benito Martinez, who played David Aceveda on The Shield, back on the screen as the judge in this profoundly important case.) But, my recommendation is ... see it for yourself.
See also Skylar Blinn's (May 2025) paper Pistols and Paperwork: The Politics of the UnitedHealthcare CEO Assassination for more on the news media and Mangione.
A Prime Moral Quandary
Law & Order has pretty much since the day it debuted in 1990 excelled in confronting some of the toughest ethical issues in the prosecution of crime. Its focus on DAs, ADAs, and their assistants in the courtroom part of bringing criminals to justice could amount to a veritable MA in the ethics of criminal justice, and I'd wager that specific programs in this TV series have found their way into many a class in the John Jay College of Criminal Justice here in midtown Manhattan, a few blocks away from the Lincoln Center campus of Fordham University, where I've been a Professor (at the Bronx Rose Hill Campus) about the same number of years that Law & Order has been on the air, taking into account its eleven-year hiatus from 2010-2021.
[There will be spoilers ahead ...]
And the Season 22 finale of Law & Order (episode 22) that aired this week provided a fine example of that ethical probing, in this case the problem of (a) if you know for a fact that someone committed multiple brutal murders over the years, but (b) the evidence via which you know this is ruled non-admissible by the judge (either thick-headed, or brilliant, or anywhere in between), is it (c) right to bend the rules, to the point of doing whatever it takes to get the guilty party off the street and behind bars or worse?
It was clear that this episode would be morally gut-punching about 30 minutes into the story, the beginning of the "Order" part, when we learn that ADA Samantha ("Sam") Maroun's sister was years ago one of the victims of the killer who would be on trial. Executive ADA Nolan Price, who will be prosecuting the case in court, wants Sam to have a minimal role in this prosecution, but of course she doesn't, and in her zeal to see the killer brought to justice she coaches a witness to make sure he gives a conclusive ID of the suspect. Nolan struggles with whether to let the defence attorney know. The DA Nick Baxter subtly advises Nolan to forget that he knows what Sam did, but after agonizing over what to do, Nolan plays by rules. This in turn also of course results in the arrogant smirking killer being found not guilty.
And things only get worse from there. Not only is killer found not guilty, he's soon shot dead. Nolan pays Sam a visit. He knocks on her door. She opens it. "Please tell me you had on nothing to do with this," Nolan says to her. Sam, looking stricken (as she has for most of this episode), slams the door in his face.
Now the question of whether to take justice into your own hands is one which has arisen not only in crime fiction but science fiction, where the question of whether it would be right for a time traveler to kill Hitler as a baby has been considered in more than one narrative. It would be hard to ipso facto say that course of action is out of the question, and the same is true about Sam and the man she knows brutally murdered her sister. But I have to say I think there's a good chance that Sam didn't do it. The parents of the latest victim were in court when their daughter's sicko killer was declared "not guilty," and they looked none too happy. Sam's stricken look at the end of the episode (especially fine acting by Odelya Halevi as Sam and Hugh Dancy as Nolan in this episode, by the way) could well have been not one of guilt for what she did, but one of anger at Nolan for thinking she might have murdered her sister's killer.
The good thing about season rather than series finales is we'll learn more in September, when Law & Order will return for its next season. Have a great summer!
About the Creator
Paul Levinson
Novels The Silk Code, The Plot To Save Socrates, It's Real Life: An Alternate History of The Beatles; LPs Twice Upon A Rhyme & Welcome Up; nonfiction The Soft Edge & Digital McLuhan, translated into 15 languages. Prof, Fordham Univ.
Keep reading
More stories from Paul Levinson and writers in Criminal and other communities.
Minneapolis ICE Shooting Updates
In recent weeks, Minneapolis has found itself at the center of a growing legal and political controversy following a shooting involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. What initially appeared to be a straightforward federal use-of-force investigation has evolved into a broader dispute between state authorities and federal officials, raising serious questions about transparency, jurisdiction, and accountability. The most significant development so far is the state’s claim that it has been denied access to key evidence related to the incident. As public attention intensifies, the case is no longer just about what happened during the shooting. It is increasingly about who controls the facts, who gets to investigate them, and how justice is supposed to function when federal and state systems collide. What We Know About the Minneapolis ICE Shooting The shooting occurred during a federal immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis. ICE agents were reportedly conducting official duties when gunfire erupted, resulting in injuries and immediate emergency response. Federal authorities confirmed the incident and stated that internal protocols were activated, including an automatic review by federal oversight bodies. From the beginning, details were limited. Officials cited the ongoing nature of the investigation and concerns about officer safety. This lack of information, while not unusual in federal cases, quickly became a point of friction for Minnesota state authorities, who argued that the public deserved clarity and that the state had a legal role to play in examining the incident. State Authorities Push for Transparency Minnesota state officials, including investigators and legal representatives, formally requested access to evidence connected to the shooting. This evidence reportedly includes body camera footage, surveillance recordings, forensic reports, and internal communication logs from the operation. According to state representatives, these requests were either delayed or denied outright. The state has since gone on record stating that it cannot independently assess the legality of the shooting without full access to the materials. This denial has fueled concerns that federal agencies are operating without sufficient external oversight, especially in incidents involving potential civilian harm. State leaders emphasized that their position is not adversarial by default. Rather, they argue that cooperation between federal and state agencies is essential to maintain public trust, particularly in communities already wary of immigration enforcement. Federal Response and Jurisdictional Limits Federal officials, for their part, maintain that the investigation falls squarely under federal jurisdiction. ICE operates as a federal agency, and shootings involving federal officers are typically reviewed internally and, when appropriate, by federal prosecutors or inspectors general. In statements released following the controversy, federal representatives cited legal restrictions that limit the sharing of evidence during an active investigation. They also stressed that premature disclosure could compromise witness testimony or investigative integrity. This explanation, while legally grounded, has done little to ease state frustrations. Critics argue that “ongoing investigation” has too often been used as a blanket justification for withholding information, even in cases where transparency could prevent misinformation and public unrest. Community Reaction and Public Trust The Minneapolis community has responded with a mix of concern, anger, and fatigue. For many residents, particularly in immigrant and marginalized communities, the shooting has reopened long-standing fears about aggressive enforcement tactics and lack of accountability. Community leaders and advocacy groups have called for the immediate release of non-sensitive evidence, arguing that transparency is a prerequisite for trust. Peaceful demonstrations and public forums have highlighted a broader demand: that no law enforcement agency, federal or otherwise, should be beyond scrutiny. Local officials echoed these concerns, noting that Minneapolis has spent years attempting to rebuild trust between residents and law enforcement. The perception that evidence is being withheld threatens to undermine that progress. Legal Implications of Denied Evidence From a legal standpoint, the state’s inability to access evidence raises complex questions. While federal agencies do have authority over their operations, states also have a responsibility to investigate deaths or injuries occurring within their borders. Legal experts suggest that this dispute could set a precedent. If states are routinely blocked from reviewing evidence in federal use-of-force cases, it may limit their ability to pursue independent inquiries or bring charges under state law when applicable. Some analysts believe the issue could ultimately be resolved in court, with judges determining whether the state has a legal right to access certain materials. Such a ruling could have national implications, influencing how future federal-state conflicts are handled. Political Dimensions of the Case The Minneapolis ICE shooting has also taken on a political dimension. Immigration enforcement remains a deeply divisive issue, and incidents like this tend to amplify existing ideological divides. State officials critical of federal immigration policies view the denial of evidence as symptomatic of a larger lack of accountability. Meanwhile, supporters of strict federal enforcement argue that state interference could hinder effective operations and put officers at risk. This political tension complicates the path forward. What might otherwise be a procedural disagreement risks becoming a symbolic battle over immigration, law enforcement authority, and states’ rights. What Happens Next? As of now, the investigation continues under federal oversight, while the state explores its legal options. Negotiations between state and federal officials have reportedly not been ruled out, suggesting that a compromise could still be reached. Potential next steps include limited evidence sharing under confidentiality agreements, congressional inquiries, or judicial review. Each option carries its own risks and consequences, both legally and politically. What remains clear is that public pressure is unlikely to fade. Minneapolis residents, like many Americans, are demanding clarity, fairness, and accountability in cases involving law enforcement use of force. A Broader Conversation About Accountability The Minneapolis ICE shooting is no longer just a single incident under investigation. It has become a lens through which broader issues are being examined: the balance of power between federal and state authorities, the limits of transparency, and the role of public oversight in a democratic society. Whether or not the state ultimately gains access to the evidence, the controversy has already sparked an important conversation. How that conversation translates into policy, practice, or reform remains to be seen, but its impact will likely extend far beyond Minneapolis. In the end, accountability is not only about assigning blame. It is about ensuring that systems function openly and fairly, especially when lives are affected. The outcome of this case may help determine how well those principles are upheld in the future.
By Saboor Brohi 4 days ago in Criminal
Sabrina Carpenter Accused of Copying Tiffany A♡ Luna’s Crown Logo—While Her Federal Plagiarism Case Spirals Into Further Career Ruin
Sabrina Carpenter’s pop princess image is crumbling under the weight of what is now being described as one of the most damaging plagiarism cases in music history. The Disney-born starlet is not only battling a brutal federal lawsuit over her song Espresso, but now faces new backlash after debuting a crown into her updated logo June 6, 2025 eerily similar to Tiffany A♡ Luna’s crown, which was quietly unveiled just weeks before — the same Tiffany A♡ Luna currently suing her in federal court.
By Dena Falken Esq7 days ago in Criminal
Let's Don't Do This
"I just can't do this anymore..." "Do what?" What can't you do? Put gas in your own car? I swear to God you make me take care of everything, don't you? You know I'm on my way to work right now but that never stops you from bothering me, does it?"
By Shirley Belk7 days ago in Fiction
Comments (1)
Is this a movie?