Yo, Andariel Halo - how did you manage to watch the episode TWICE and still not get the very basics of the story? Yes, the episode was outlandish, as per usual, and there were some ridiculous and unbelievable turns, but the motivation for the characters' actions were made very, very clear. It was emphasised throughout Mr Berlin's (Noonan) impassioned speeches that he had a great respect for the law, hence his decision to live as a abstinent pedophile. His whole philosophy was accepting who he was and the way he was made, within the bounds of the law. The episode clearly states that the 17 year old boy 'snapped' and molested a child, then wrote about it in graphic detail on Berlin's site, imploring him to experience the 'bliss' for himself. As a man whose mission is to live, teach and monitor the 'look but don't touch' mantra, Eric's (Allman) actions were a giant slap in the face. Berlin also recognised the tremendous harm Eric had caused this child, equating sexual assault with death as it basically kills their innocence, hope, soul, etc., thus he thought the punishment should fit the crime and brutally murdered him.
Now, I am in no way justifying his philosophy, or actions, or those of the stepfather or son - pretty much everyone in this episode had some major, major shades of grey going on in just about every interaction. But that's the beauty of SVU - every single person in it is morally ambiguous to some degree: Olivia is self righteous and over-involved, Elliot has anger management issues and is a workaholic, Fin was an absent dad, John has multiple failed marriages and is a conspiracy nut, Donald was an alcoholic and Casey and Chester were disbarred and arrested respectively, due to over-zealousness and vigilante behaviour on their last case.
You keep pointing out that the kid committed no crime, but the statistics show that repeated and prolonged fantasies lead to getting more comfortable with the idea and eventually acting on those thoughts. If you don't believe it, please google Peter Woodcock, or just about any psychological profile of any sexual serial killer. Eric committed a crime against an unknown child and died horribly as a result. Did he deserve to be sodomized with a baseball bat and stabbed repeatedly with blunt knives? Who can say? That's the point - we aren't god, justice isn't in our hands and what he deserved to get for his crime is not for us to decide.
In addition, anyone who has had a 'sexual fantasy about anyone under 18' probably should be looked at - unless you're within the stated age range to avoid statutory rape, then it's against the law. Thoughts are the beginning of actions and everybody has to start somewhere. The difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is simple - in homosexual relationships, or any adult relationships for that matter, the balance of power has the potential to be equal. This may not always be the case, but at least it is possible. In an adult/child relationship, there is no such option; the power - be it physical, emotional, sexual, what have you - is always going to be land in the adult's favour. And that has lasting effects for the child's sense of self, trust in others, mental stability, etc. They're prey. Replacing pedophilia with homosexuality in those sentences would make for prejudice and homophobia, but the two are not even comparable, so don't get all high and mighty until you recognise exactly what you're defending.
Now, I am in no way justifying his philosophy, or actions, or those of the stepfather or son - pretty much everyone in this episode had some major, major shades of grey going on in just about every interaction. But that's the beauty of SVU - every single person in it is morally ambiguous to some degree: Olivia is self righteous and over-involved, Elliot has anger management issues and is a workaholic, Fin was an absent dad, John has multiple failed marriages and is a conspiracy nut, Donald was an alcoholic and Casey and Chester were disbarred and arrested respectively, due to over-zealousness and vigilante behaviour on their last case.
You keep pointing out that the kid committed no crime, but the statistics show that repeated and prolonged fantasies lead to getting more comfortable with the idea and eventually acting on those thoughts. If you don't believe it, please google Peter Woodcock, or just about any psychological profile of any sexual serial killer. Eric committed a crime against an unknown child and died horribly as a result. Did he deserve to be sodomized with a baseball bat and stabbed repeatedly with blunt knives? Who can say? That's the point - we aren't god, justice isn't in our hands and what he deserved to get for his crime is not for us to decide.
In addition, anyone who has had a 'sexual fantasy about anyone under 18' probably should be looked at - unless you're within the stated age range to avoid statutory rape, then it's against the law. Thoughts are the beginning of actions and everybody has to start somewhere. The difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is simple - in homosexual relationships, or any adult relationships for that matter, the balance of power has the potential to be equal. This may not always be the case, but at least it is possible. In an adult/child relationship, there is no such option; the power - be it physical, emotional, sexual, what have you - is always going to be land in the adult's favour. And that has lasting effects for the child's sense of self, trust in others, mental stability, etc. They're prey. Replacing pedophilia with homosexuality in those sentences would make for prejudice and homophobia, but the two are not even comparable, so don't get all high and mighty until you recognise exactly what you're defending.