Nick's Journal
2006-10-18 14:38:45 (UTC)

I think I'm learning something from Court TV Shows

whenever i have a free moment i decide to burden myself with
the law just for shits and giggles. i do this by watching
the plethora of tv court shows. everything from judge judy
to judge alex to the people's court to (my ultimate
favorite) judge mathis. i don't really like judge judy or
judge alex. judge judy is at that point where she's just
like, "fuck you guys, hasn't this novelty of me yelling at
you all worn off yet? fuck, get me a drink!" judge alex
seriously looks as though he's retarded.
i like the people's court because it at least has realistic
cases (namely people suing for car damages or unpaid rent)
where as judy & alex have some stupid shit where some dude
lived on a guy's couch for 3 months. the guy said to him,
"if you love it so much here i'll sell you my house." SOLD
HIS HOUSE couldn't find a place to live and now was suing
the guy because apparently he had thrown all of his
belongings out. what is that stupid shit?
the judge in people's court is pretty good, she's a bit more
tuned downed than judge judy and also employs sound logical
reasoning. judge mathis on the other hand just lays down
the law with a little bit of flava. first of all he acts
(and looks) like a drunk laurence fishburne. instead of
just confining his judicial opinions to the application of
law to fact at hand he doesn't hesitate to take it one step
further and "put the back of his hand to yo' sassy ass!"
he also has the funniest cases (which aren't mind-blowingly
unbelievable). one was about this guy who pretended he was
rap publicist but actually wasn't. it was hilarious because
these court shows are all staged in the perfect manner where
there is one dispositive fact that the judge can just harp
on. in this instance it was that the publicist (after
having denied any wrongdoing for about 20
minutes...including commerical time) had made a phone call
(which the plaintiff taped) in which he admitted taht he
wasn't a publicist and that he would pay her money back.
you best believe that judge mathis laid down the law.
anyhow, at the very least these are stupid and ultimately
brain-deadening cases. the facts are usually so clearly in
one party's favor within the first 5 mins of the trial that
it isn't really even funny. now i'm not saying that that
can't be the case in about 90% of civil trials (which is why
90% of civil trials don't even occur), but when you have a
girl saying that she didn't wreck her baby's daddy's car and
then there is a 40 minute video tape of her downing tequila
while the camera zooms in on the license plate and then
follows her as she runs into a wall at about 15 mph because
she's too drunk to realize she had it in neutral...well,
that's something you don't normally get in trial courts.