While Robert W. Anderson's review contains some good points, it is far too harsh.
I've watched every episode of "Cold Justice: Sex Crimes" (they are available on YouTube), and quite frankly, I'd like to see more.
Good Points
1. The show never slips into a feminist diatribe against men. It could to gain a wider audience. Instead, every case is handled professionally.
2. The hosts are fine. Yes, they are both former prosecutors. So what? Nothing about the hosts grates on me. Again, they are very professional. (Robert W. Anderson's review prefers the series "Cold Justice". Please tell us, Robert, what is so good about retired detective Johnny Bonds? His interrogation skills are abusive and usually lead nowhere.)
3. Each case is unique. Yes, they are all rape cases. However, the victims are different, the cities are different, the settings of the rapes are different. What else would you like to see, Robert? Unsolved child abuse cases? Unsolved teacher boinks student cases? Unsolved man raped by woman cases?
The Fundamental Problems
1. Every case in "Cold Justice: Sex Crimes" ultimately comes down to "Is there DNA evidence?" In the ten episodes, not one case was solved without DNA.
2. It's a sad comment on American society that "Cold Justice: Sex Crimes" actually exists simply because cities cannot afford to send Sexual Assault Evidence (SAE) kits to a forensics lab for processing. Some cities have a 15-year backlog of untested SAE kits. TNT network steps in, pays for a few kits to be processed at the private Sorenson Forensics lab, and cases immediately get solved.
