Law & Order season 2 episode 5 Recap and FAQ
Episode Summary
The Driscolls, devoutly religious parents, face a heart-wrenching ordeal as their daughter Dinah falls critically ill. Adhering to their faith that forbids modern medicine, they rely solely on prayer for her recovery. This decision brings them into conflict with medical authorities and the law when police and doctors intervene. An investigation reveals a similar past tragedy in the family, deepening the dilemma. In a gripping courtroom battle, the Driscolls defend their beliefs but are ultimately found guilty of manslaughter and child endangerment, highlighting the complex interplay of religion, parental rights, and child welfare.
Full Episode S02E05 Recap
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the main roles in the criminal justice system as described in the opening scene?
The police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders.
What was the condition of Dinah Driscoll when the police arrived?
Dinah Driscoll was critically ill and having difficulty breathing.
Why did the Driscolls refuse medical treatment for Dinah?
Their religion forbade the use of modern medicine.
What legal dilemma did the hospital face in treating Dinah?
The dilemma was whether to treat Dinah against her parents' wishes due to their religious beliefs.
What was the relationship between Mrs. Amado and the Driscolls?
Mrs. Amado was the Driscolls' housekeeper.
What previous incident involving the Driscolls' family was uncovered during the investigation?
The death of the Driscolls' son, Daniel, years earlier under similar circumstances.
What charges were brought against the Driscolls?
Manslaughter and endangering the welfare of a child.
How did the court case address the issue of spiritual healing?
The case examined whether spiritual healing could be a valid defense for refusing medical treatment for a child.
What was the verdict in Theodore Driscoll's case?
He was found guilty of manslaughter.
What was the verdict in Nancy Driscoll's case?
She was found guilty of both manslaughter and endangering the welfare of a child.
What broader issues did the case raise?
It raised issues about religious freedom, parental rights, and the state's responsibility in protecting children.
Was the jury influenced by the religious beliefs of the Driscolls?
The jury had to consider the Driscolls' beliefs but focus on the legal aspects of the case.
Did the case have implications for future similar cases?
Yes, it was seen as a potential deterrent for future cases involving refusal of medical care due to religious beliefs.
What was the emotional impact of the case on the jury and public?
The case stirred emotions about the balance between religious beliefs and the welfare of a child.
How did the case conclude?
With the Driscolls found guilty, reflecting the complexity of balancing legal, moral, and religious considerations in such cases.
