Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
for those that think she's made up her mind, or knows more than she's supposed to know - that is due to the pleadings that are filed on the case. She reads them prior to taking the bench. She has a good idea of which side makes sense, and has the evidence to prove their case. I imagine they show us only the most entertaining ones out of many.
FWIW, that's the case (no pun intended) with all court shows.
Well, I don't have much legal training, so I can't speak to that, but I do think the shows often have to be edited for tv and we miss some of the information. There are times in which I don't follow all of the evidence and then, she has more information than we do, so she knows something about whom she's dealing with that we are not privy to.
Then, it is like small claims court - for very little money - AND the judgments are paid by the production, so there are really no losers. I would imagine that a dead beat defendant, knowing he is wrong, would appear on the show because he loses no money out of his pocket, only his self respect and many do not appear to have a lot of that in the first place.
I have seen her ask a defendant if they were ever in trouble with the law again. I don't think, if they have, that she can bring that up, and I don't think anyone is obliged to answer that question, but if they do, then THEY are the ones who are introducing it. Also, doesn't she have the ability to reseach a person's past record before the show?
Am I right with this?
Everything you say is correct.
With shows such as Judge Judy and The People's Court (my two favorites), they pay both parties just to come on the show. The person who loses doesn't have to pay a dime out of pocket to the other party, but I do believe the loss goes on their credit report (plus they don't want to be humiliated on national TV).
I will never forget when a couple came in and stood before Judy. The woman was claiming some kind of damages from physical abuse from her SO, "he abused me on this day, then on that day he did this he did that to me... then when we were getting ready to go on vacation he..."
Judy says "wait a minute, you are telling me this man physically abused you repeatedly and you are going on VACATIONS with him?...LADY YOU ARE A DRAMA QUEEN AND THIS CASE IS DISMISSED!!"
I used to really enjoy her show and her realness and even bought her books. Now, I'm not crazy about her anymore and I don't watch her show. She talks over people, rarely lets someone complete a sentence, and seems to have her mind made up before they even start. I also don't like her screaming.
What the litigants must understand too (and I debate this with a lot of people) is that no one cares to hear their life story, and it is the judge who runs the courtroom. The judge only wants to deal with the facts of the case, not who's doing what drug or who's sleeping with who or who has what mental problems (That's what Maury, Jerry Springer, Steve Wilkos, Dr. Phil, etc. are for). So either you abide by however way they want to run their proceeding, don't come at all, or be humiliated by the judge in front of millions of people.
I love, love, her and the show. In fact I want to grow up to be just like her, even tho she may very well be younger than me! The world needs more of her good old fashioned common sense, sense of humor, and solid values.
Agreed.
Folks like JJ are indeed a dying breed from a different era.
I've seen Judy a few times - not something I watch on a regular basis. I think she is histrionic because she has a TV show. What she does on TV wouldn't fly in an actual courtroom....
See my earlier post with her 60 Minute interview from 1993. You're wrong.
The way she conducts her proceedings on TV was the same way she conducted them in Family Court.
But why is/was her otherwise unorthodox behavior accepted? Because she's good at what she does.
I don't like her. She's essentially a lawyer that's a "shock jock." Tom Leykis or Adam Carolla, but with the initials JD after her name. Just like Dr. Laura, she knows everything in 3 minutes.
It seems that these 'judge' shows have evolved into personality contest. Each one needs to have their style/gimick to set the show. For me, judge Joe Brown is the best, although long winded at times. Judge Judy is the 'shock' judge in my opinion, over the top rude at times. She better not have that demeanor in public life, judge or not. HOF nominee is Judge Wapner RIP
I don't really care too much for Judge joe Brown.
I want to watch a courtroom proceeding. He allows the people on his show (the vast majority of who seem to be fluent in Ebonics) yap about nothing, talk out of turn, disrespect him, then all he can tell them is to "Man Up!"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
