azzkicker: judy is an such a b#~^~ and is in the wrong to call plantiffs and the defence names, which she does alot lately, yet i cant help watch
who else agrees?
StuckInTheSixties: Did you ever notice that on Judge Judy, when they show either the defendant or the plaintive, quite often, just over their shoulder is the face of a some pretty girl in the audience. It's obvious that they must arrange the audience carefully so that those pretty faces are lined up with the camera angle and the defendant/plaintive.
Frumpy: i've been watching it on and off the odd times - but it's just a show nothing too legal about it - anyone with a bit of law knowledge could carry off this show - in fact anyone with a bit of common sense could actually realise that this is just a freak show.
StuckInTheSixties: There does seem to be a bit of emphasis on cases with salacious aspects, doesn't there?
Frumpy: quite a lot of these cases - the minute they open their mouth you can see where they're coming from.
lois_lane: I really like Judge Judy. She is a real judge and she use to work in Family court cases. Shes now in small claims court and if you have ever been there before(small claims) OMG some of the cases are stupid as hell. "you owe me 150$$ and so on". Shes sometimes is a little rough (haha) but I think she does it to prove a point, that just cuz there are cameras in the room doesnt mean you dont take this seriously you know. Most just want to go on the show cuz they pay you a little something for it. Which most of the time takes care of their small claim lols. I her
Malobear: Its a show, so Judge Judy is just doing what will help the ratings, probably under the advice of her producers. She is not my favorite tho. I am a big fan of Judge Joe,maybe because I know the court system he came from (Memphis,Tenn.). But Judy is funny to watch too.
StuckInTheSixties: Way back when, in the days of yore, there used to be this show called "The People's Court." It featured this nice old guy named Judge Wopner.
It was really interesting to anyone with an interest in law, in how the justice system works within Small Claims courts, but it wasn't very sensational. It didn't have cases that featured people that slept together. There wasn't any emphasis on sexual matters. There was very little perjury. The judge never had to call anyone a liar. There was never any need for him to raise his voice. In fact, it was essentially just like what you would find in any small claims court. The only real difference was that you got to hear the verdict after a commercial break, rather than having the verdict delivered by mail by the litigants as happens in real life, and you got to hear the judge explain his verdict, and how the law applied to it. For those interested in law, it was great!
It had cases with things like a fender-bender in a parking lot, or a dog bite. And that was interesting because you got to see how the law of evidence applied to real people in real situations. And because they were real situations, there was a great deal of variation in the kind of cases presented. That was interesting, because you got to see how the law was applied to many different situations.
Compare that to the courtroom shows of today. They almost invariably have some sort of salacious content. There's almost always some s%x in there somewhere. The cases are cherry picked for that. And because the shows are limited to those kinds of cases, the shows are quite repetitive. They're all the same. They all feature someone who is skanky in some way, so that the Judge can moralize about how skanky they are. They all feature someone who is lying, so that the Judge can tell them that they're lying. There are almost always roommates involved, or people who were formerly in relationships.
That kind of shit sells today. Interesting examples of the application of law doesn't. The People's Court exists today. It features the same shit that Judge Judy, and all the other Judges, features: skanky people, liars, former roommates, former lovers, and titallating sexual overtones.
lois_lane: I was going to mention Peoples Court but I dont watch it anymore. I always use to with Wopner and even when Koch took over. I do like Judge Milian but I dont watch it anymore. I have been watching Judge Judy for yrs and still find it just as entertaining as I did the first time. I like her No nonsense attitude but she still has some s#y#^ in her. Like I said, its small claims court and there are some pretty weird things that people take others to court for. Judge Joe is the worst and he lets people act like animals in his court room.
LookingSpecifically: I find the show really unfair
Her 'thing' is that she's strict and in your face, and to do that, she often doesn't let people speak and make their case.
She just rudely expresses her opinion based on things that might be considered discrimination- for example, like someone said, that someone looks skanky.
Skanky people can sometimes be right!
Animal Lover: I watch it frequently and wish we had Judges like her here in the UK.
Our Appeal Court the other week would not allow an Iranian illegal immigrant, who drove with no license or insurance and killed an 8-year-old girl and didn't stop, to be deported! It would breach his human rights apparently because he has established a family life here.
Curse the EU for that legislation and Tony Blair for signing up to it.
StuckInTheSixties: It's essentially fake. It has little or no resemblance to what actually happens in small claims courts. If you like fake courtroom depictions, with cases cherry-picked for salaciousness, than it's the program for you. Enjoy.
lois_lane: Yes we get that, just like Repo Man is Re enactments of actual situations that have happened to them. WTF she is still a real judge.
Animal Lover: OK the cases might be cherry-picked but they're still cases that she has to hear in the small claims court so what's the problem?
Wampum6: Enjoy the show for what it is----a show----a production-----but hardly the depiction of a real courtroom. It's kind of like a drama queen and a cast of actors. And, apparently enjoyable for some!
StuckInTheSixties: AlyT, the problem for me is that I find it's essentially the same thing over and over again.
Let me make a food analogy:
Paprika is a great, really interesting flavorful spice. Let's say that Paprika represents the salacious, dramaqueenish "flavor" of Judge Judy.
And let's say you have a large variety of meals and recipes to represent the variety of cases that can be heard in a typical small claims court.
Okay. Today, let's start our day with a bowl of cereal, a banana, and toast for breakfast ... but dump a bunch of Paprika on them.
Lunch, it'll be a salad and soup ... with Paprika.
Dinner, Lasagna and vegetables with a glass of red wine ... all flavored strongly with Paprika.
Get the idea? Lots of different meals can be had, but they're all rendered the same because of the Paprika. That's how I see Judge Judy. Lots of different cases to be heard, but they're all sifted to favor the salacious ones only, and the Judge's routine, shouting, insulting, etc. is always the same. It's like putting Paprika on every single meal you eat.
Obviously, it sells soap on television, though.
lois_lane: It is "samey" lols but what do people expect. Its a courtroom show . I mean do people want clowns and what not prancing around like its chucky cheese ffs. There are soooo many other stupid courtroom shows, why pick on poor 70 something yr old Judge Judy. If you have ever been to small claims court, there really isnt any difference besides the cameras in your face.
StuckInTheSixties: The old "People's Court," the one with Judge Wopner, was a fairly realistic depiction of how actual small claims courts work. Unlike Judge Judy, there were very few former roommates, each saying the other is lying. Unlike Judge Judy, there were very few former lovers, each saying that the other was psychotic. Unlike Judge Judy, no one ever called anyone else names. Unlike Judge Judy, Judge Wopner never accused anyone of lying, or put anyone down. Unlike Judge Judy, no one ever raised their voice. Unlike Judge Judy, there wasn't any insults being thrown around, either by the the litigants, nor the judge. Unlike Judge Judy, it was an orderly environment where regular courtroom decorum was observed. Like an actual courtroom.
Like a typical small claims court system, the old "People's Court" had cases about everything under the sun. A guy's tree grows up tall and blocks the once beautiful view of his neighbor. A woman is backing out of her parking space and there is a minor collision with a car moving through the parking lot. A kid climbs someone's fence to retrieve a ball, and get's bitten by his dog. Someone buys a used bicycle in a moving sale, and someone recognizes it as their stolen bike. All sorts of cases.
And the Judge would make brief, interesting explanations of the laws being applied, and how they related to the case.
The really big difference is that the tone of People's Court was kind of dry, low key, and not salacious. In a word, realistic.
Wampum6: You may be fortunate. Courtrooms are not often the most interesting places to be, unless they are dressed up like Judge Judy's "performances" so to speak!
StuckInTheSixties: One reason law is interesting is because it's not always just. In the old Judge Wopner version of People's Court, he would occasionally have to express sympathy for a losing party, but remain firm in having to follow the law.
Interesting aspects of law can be found in Judge Judy, as well, but things like that are all but buried in a flood of other junk that has little to do with law.