“Innocent until proven guilty?” Whoa, folks. There is no “innocent” and “guilty” in a civil trail! There is no “beyond a reasonable doubt” either!
Having said that, I agree that Judge Wapner took the time to explain the law behind his decisions, something that JJ rarely does. I also agree that JJ seems to have decided the case after reading the complaint & answer, before she even steps into the courtroom. But I have seen her exhibit compassion on occasion, and to even offer excellent advice.
She also makes me laugh a lot. So I guess that I am a fan of the show, but I will concede that it’s getting a little played out.
Tell that to Judge Judy. It’s clear that she considers litigents not only liable, but guilty, which disturbs me because, as you say, there’s not supposed to be any determination of guilt in a civil trial.
One of her quotes they use on the everpresent ads (something like): “Dog bites child- dog owner at fault- case closed”. Whatever you do- don’t let them nasty facts get in the way of a good bitch-out! Why do they even bother to present their cases- JJ has clearly decieded the case in advance based on her personal prejudices. She- without a doubt is the worst “Judge” I have ever seen.
We don’t see the entire proceeeding. It’s obvious that each proceeding is probably twice as long as what we actually see, and maybe more; it’s reasonably well edited but you can tell there are huge gaps they’re leaving out. So in truth, you’re not seeing the entire thing, and it’s possible she’s fairer than the edited version would suggest.
I’ve seen her explain her decisions based on law.
With all due respect, Judge Judy’s a game show, not a court, and nobody with an IQ above 90 thinks it’s a real courtroom. I don’t mean to bitch out people I’ve never met, but they’re not drafting the contestants; they sign up for the show voluntarily, so they should know what they’re getting into.
And on that note, am I the only one who’s noticed that although this show has been on the air for years, none of the people who appar on it seem to have bothered to watch the show and pay attention? You would think that anyone appearing on Judge Judy would have noticed by now that she has a thing for documented evidence, and yet any time I surf to it, there’s some dimwit who didn’t bring the (receipt/divorce papers/lease/loan documents/bills.)
I personally think she’s a misanthropic little ice bitch who serves no useful purpose other than bitching out the gormless retards who volunteer to appear on that waste of airspace honestly thinking they’ll get some actual justice out of that TV ratings whore. Come to think about it, I might start a pit thread later this evening about her. Depends if I can muster up enough vitriol. We’ll see.
I’ve only seen her twice, and what I saw did not impress me. I think she purposely panders to the lowest common denominator in order to maintain her audience, which seems to consist of (a) the same people who would volunteer to be on her show, and (b) the mostly intelligent folks capable of critical thought who watch for the same reason they slow down when they pass a car accident. Her blatant refusals to actually listen to witnesses (she seems to favor them “cut-em-off-and-blow-hot-air” technique of gathering information) and her snap-decisions, all of which lack any explanation or precedence, disgust me.
What angered me the most during the show I watched was that when the defense and prosecution explained themselves without her interruptions, each side made sense. They painted a decent picture of the incident (basically, a “rock-'em, sock-'em, smack that bitch up” style ho-down) and I followed. Then Judy climbed into the saddle and I was completely lost. She did her absolute best to muddle whatever logic was present and confused the hell out of everyone there.
It’s this image, combined with those icons of law and order, Ally McBeal and Murder She Wrote, that allow people to think they can get away with murder.
