For anyone who understands and realizes how imperfect our current judicial system is, they will more than likely appreciate this show.
This program offers a new alternative to our current judicial system. Only two episodes have aired so far, but it seems as if the cases tried on this program are very appropriate for a more open and diverse jury and should not be limited to just 12 jurors in a traditional courtroom.
With that being said, I do agree with certain criticisms of this show:
1) If either one of the parties are particularly popular or have the financial means to bribe people for votes, this can be an issue. This type of scenario is unlikely, but it certainly is possible given the open format.
2) The program is limited to one hour. Obviously, a traditional trial takes much longer than this. One hour is not long enough to comb through very important details that could convince a jury to change their vote. I particularly noticed this in the second program about racism.
3) The reactions from the people in the audience (in the studio) are not fair and is inappropriate. While this can easily happen in a traditional courtroom, in a traditional courtroom it is strictly prohibited and is punished. On this show, it almost seems as if it is encouraged for dramatic effect, which I don't like. It cheapens the procedure and the format as well as takes away from the credibility of the show.
4) As a layperson, it seems strange that the show is prerecorded but then after the votes come in, the program 'looks' as if it is suddenly live. They should explicitly explain to the viewing audience that the trial is prerecorded and that the footage that they show after the votes come in is also prerecorded. This part is misleading and also takes away from the credibility of the vote. I noticed this on the first episode.
With all of this said, I still love the show. Our judicial system needs a serious upgrade, and I think that this program gives the American people a chance to vote on cases that they would never have access to in a traditional courtroom format. These are very important cases that are of great importance to the people of our country on many levels. They are not just small-time cases and insignificant issues. The cases here are issues that are of high interest to Americans as a whole (at least from what I have seen so far). There will always be drawbacks and consequences if you open things up in a broad manner, and in this particular case, I am referring to opening up the jury pool to any random American person watching the show. However, there are also greater possibilities for greater justice when you open up the jury pool in this way. The parties have a chance to hear from way more than just 12 people carefully selected to determine the fate of their case. I think overall, this format is more fair to the parties involved. So yes, the system can be manipulated if one has the popularity or the financial means to do so. But that is highly unlikely given the fact that an indeterminate amount of anonymous people can vote from all over the country.
Overall, I see this program as a positive evolution in our judicial system. I would love to see them do away with any and all of the dramatic effects (music, audience reactions, etc), but other than that, I love the chance to vote on issues and cases that I think are of great importance. And I love the fact that every single American has a chance to vote as well. The true downside, however, is that one hour is not enough time to comb through some very important details. However, I do feel that the show highlights the most important points that one needs to know to make a decision. I am excited to see how this plays out in future episodes and to see whether or not my perceived lack of time for each case is an issue for future cases.
This program offers a new alternative to our current judicial system. Only two episodes have aired so far, but it seems as if the cases tried on this program are very appropriate for a more open and diverse jury and should not be limited to just 12 jurors in a traditional courtroom.
With that being said, I do agree with certain criticisms of this show:
1) If either one of the parties are particularly popular or have the financial means to bribe people for votes, this can be an issue. This type of scenario is unlikely, but it certainly is possible given the open format.
2) The program is limited to one hour. Obviously, a traditional trial takes much longer than this. One hour is not long enough to comb through very important details that could convince a jury to change their vote. I particularly noticed this in the second program about racism.
3) The reactions from the people in the audience (in the studio) are not fair and is inappropriate. While this can easily happen in a traditional courtroom, in a traditional courtroom it is strictly prohibited and is punished. On this show, it almost seems as if it is encouraged for dramatic effect, which I don't like. It cheapens the procedure and the format as well as takes away from the credibility of the show.
4) As a layperson, it seems strange that the show is prerecorded but then after the votes come in, the program 'looks' as if it is suddenly live. They should explicitly explain to the viewing audience that the trial is prerecorded and that the footage that they show after the votes come in is also prerecorded. This part is misleading and also takes away from the credibility of the vote. I noticed this on the first episode.
With all of this said, I still love the show. Our judicial system needs a serious upgrade, and I think that this program gives the American people a chance to vote on cases that they would never have access to in a traditional courtroom format. These are very important cases that are of great importance to the people of our country on many levels. They are not just small-time cases and insignificant issues. The cases here are issues that are of high interest to Americans as a whole (at least from what I have seen so far). There will always be drawbacks and consequences if you open things up in a broad manner, and in this particular case, I am referring to opening up the jury pool to any random American person watching the show. However, there are also greater possibilities for greater justice when you open up the jury pool in this way. The parties have a chance to hear from way more than just 12 people carefully selected to determine the fate of their case. I think overall, this format is more fair to the parties involved. So yes, the system can be manipulated if one has the popularity or the financial means to do so. But that is highly unlikely given the fact that an indeterminate amount of anonymous people can vote from all over the country.
Overall, I see this program as a positive evolution in our judicial system. I would love to see them do away with any and all of the dramatic effects (music, audience reactions, etc), but other than that, I love the chance to vote on issues and cases that I think are of great importance. And I love the fact that every single American has a chance to vote as well. The true downside, however, is that one hour is not enough time to comb through some very important details. However, I do feel that the show highlights the most important points that one needs to know to make a decision. I am excited to see how this plays out in future episodes and to see whether or not my perceived lack of time for each case is an issue for future cases.