Over the last couple of days, I’ve had to tell some of my friends that the judge shows they watch aren’t real. AGH…come on, really? It’s a studio, with actors and producers, why would they think it’s real? I think it gives a false look at the American courtroom. Any thoughts?
Excuse me…verbally announce.
The judge and the litigates are real and have signed an agreement to settle their case in this manner. They agree to abide by the judges decision.*
December 25th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
They are real. They are real litigants that have agreed to settle their real cases by coming on TV and doing it.
References :
December 25th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Pretty much do.
References :
December 25th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
can you prove that it’s not? It doesn’t make a difference to me either way because Divorce Court & Judge Mathis are 2 of my favorite shows.
References :
December 25th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
FAKE!
References :
December 25th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Most have disclaimers, either verbal or written. Anyone who actually thinks that real courtrooms are like that aren’t very smart.
References :
December 25th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Legally speaking they are "binding arbitration". The parties have agreed to be bound by the judges ruling, just as if they were in a regular court.
The fact that the arbitration is operated and funded by a TV company doesn’t make it any less ‘real’ or valid. A lot of civil cases are heard by binding arbitration these days – if you read, for example, your credit card "terms and conditions" they will almost certainly say that you agree to have any disputes settled in binding arbitration, not court.
Richard
References :
December 25th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
The judge and the litigates are real and have signed an agreement to settle their case in this manner. They agree to abide by the judges decision.*
References :