Sometimes it seems like most people will do almost anything to avoid being on a jury. Why, then, the appeal of this show, which asks viewers to become the jury in a civil trial? The obvious answer is that the show requires its viewers to invest little. Little in time and little in the rigors of "real" proceedings, where juries are given strict instructions regarding procedure.
In the first episode/trial in this series the word "justice" is mentioned once. This show is more about entertainment. One can imagine a twelve-year-old watching and casting a vote, or friends and family of both sides recruiting others to cast a vote, or someone in a bad mood--perhaps impaired by substance--striking out by casting a vote.
The staging makes it clear that entertainment is the goal. The lighting is dramatic, the music is dramatic, the gasps, tittering and applause of the studio audience are not stifled. The studio itself has the look of other modern big-box game shows. The phases of the trial are short and sweet, encouraging emotional appeals and blitzkrieg tactics.
The first case is "torn from the headlines"--the disappearance of a woman snorkeling in Aruba. Her male partner survives and claims that she was the victim of currents and her own bad judgment. The woman's sister seeking damages (though the amount of damages is strangely not revealed).
Why would the accused choose to stand trial under these circumstances, when he knows a random jury pool is like a crowd at the gladiatorial contests in the Colosseum? Is free legal counsel provided? Probably. Are the damages limited? Probably. We don't know.
The evidence in this case is circumstantial. The only evidence of consequence is the travel accident policy that the accused says was taken out by himself and the missing woman. Did he kill her for the death benefit?
Like much of social media, this show plays to the vanity of the viewer, reinforcing the common idea that everyone should have an opinion on everything and everyone else wants to know what it is. It also promotes the idea that the opinions (of a mere majority) of "jury members" are valuable. That is debatable, but some who describe juries as "twelve idiots, tried and true" might disagree, knowing that juries are easily swayed by emotional appeals in a way that most judges are not.
The trial ends with the accused facing his accuser--literally. They talk directly to each other. It's dramatic.
In this case, no mention was made of the accused's need for money. If he was in financial distress, certainly that would have been mentioned. Neither did the defense show a lack of motive due to financial solvency.
Other trial shows (notably "Judge Judy") have undermined the public's respect for the law and for legal process. This is just one more attempt to reduce the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial to the sensational trappings of a kangaroo court.
In the first episode/trial in this series the word "justice" is mentioned once. This show is more about entertainment. One can imagine a twelve-year-old watching and casting a vote, or friends and family of both sides recruiting others to cast a vote, or someone in a bad mood--perhaps impaired by substance--striking out by casting a vote.
The staging makes it clear that entertainment is the goal. The lighting is dramatic, the music is dramatic, the gasps, tittering and applause of the studio audience are not stifled. The studio itself has the look of other modern big-box game shows. The phases of the trial are short and sweet, encouraging emotional appeals and blitzkrieg tactics.
The first case is "torn from the headlines"--the disappearance of a woman snorkeling in Aruba. Her male partner survives and claims that she was the victim of currents and her own bad judgment. The woman's sister seeking damages (though the amount of damages is strangely not revealed).
Why would the accused choose to stand trial under these circumstances, when he knows a random jury pool is like a crowd at the gladiatorial contests in the Colosseum? Is free legal counsel provided? Probably. Are the damages limited? Probably. We don't know.
The evidence in this case is circumstantial. The only evidence of consequence is the travel accident policy that the accused says was taken out by himself and the missing woman. Did he kill her for the death benefit?
Like much of social media, this show plays to the vanity of the viewer, reinforcing the common idea that everyone should have an opinion on everything and everyone else wants to know what it is. It also promotes the idea that the opinions (of a mere majority) of "jury members" are valuable. That is debatable, but some who describe juries as "twelve idiots, tried and true" might disagree, knowing that juries are easily swayed by emotional appeals in a way that most judges are not.
The trial ends with the accused facing his accuser--literally. They talk directly to each other. It's dramatic.
In this case, no mention was made of the accused's need for money. If he was in financial distress, certainly that would have been mentioned. Neither did the defense show a lack of motive due to financial solvency.
Other trial shows (notably "Judge Judy") have undermined the public's respect for the law and for legal process. This is just one more attempt to reduce the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial to the sensational trappings of a kangaroo court.