Guys,

I haven't watched any of the judge shows in years, but grew up on the original People's Court with Judge Wapner. My understanding at the time was that it was exactly like a regular small-claims court proceeding with the following exceptions:

1. Both litigents had to sign a waiver that says that the decision rendered by the judge is final. (You could not appeal to a regular higher court.)

2. Both parties get money for appearing on TV from the producers. (How much exactly do you get?) The producers pay for any amount rendered by the judge in the case. (i.e, no money comes out of a litigent's own pocket.) Even if you lose, you are still compensated in some way.

3. Cases involving the return of personal property, are given a return date by the judge. The judge's balif goes to the residence in question to make sure the order is carried out on the appointed day set by the judge.

Anything that I am missing? Does Judge Judy's jurisdictions differ from Judge Wapner's? (I think that Judge Judy is taped in New York, Judge Wapner was in California, so I would say there are differences in how some laws are applied.)

But in your view, do you think that some elements of the show, may not be reality-based, or as reality-based as made out to be?

Jack

They do it to get on tv and to get paid without doing the right thing like Judge Judy seems to at times only wants to hear what she wants to hear without giving the plaintiff & defense a chance to explain their side. I used to be a fan of court shows as a child living nine years in Miami but now, they just are copying off Judy. But the original is and always will be Judge Wapner!!

Working the late shift, I have been exposed to more than my fair share of judge shows. I will run down my opinion on them.

I actually liked Judge Judy when she started, but now, she can be a bit irritating and insulting. Yes, she can give good advice at times, but I think the litigants are actually informed, BEFORE, the tapping, that they can and will be subject to huge amounts of ridicule and degrading comments, if they are to participate in this show.

Judge Mathis is cool, although he makes fun of the litigants, in a sly way, that is funny. He can get off the case/subject, often as well. He is a hoot to watch.

Judge Marilyn Millon(sp), I like her show, but she sometimes yells over the litigants, and can be a bit expressive. At least she does take the time to hear both sides, but in doing so, she tends to lose control over the proceedings. People yelling everywhere.

Judge Joe Brown thinks he is Martin Luther King, reincarnated. He loves the soap box, and will not only deliver judgements, but you get a nice preaching to, to the tune you felt you were in church.

Judge Hatchett, bless her soul, but she is annoying. Her voice is squeaky and she is actually humorous when she gets upset, and her voice rises 4 octaves. I bet only dogs can hear here at times. LOL. Who can really take her seriously, with her "Don't get me to testifying!" LOL

I am not going to even get into Judge Wapner and the animal court, is he still doing that? What a huge step down, for the guy who started it all.

The shows are not actually that far off from what you might find at a typical small claims-type court, other than there would be a lot more boring cases than they show on TV. Also people dont act as "much a fool" as they do on TV.

I don't think it's fair that no money comes out of the defendants' pockets to pay the plaintiffs. All it cost them was a lecture from the Judge. They Never Had a Lot to Lose.

There is only one show that is the one, the only, the first, and the ORIGINAL Grandaddy of court shows!! The People's Court with Judge Joseph L Wapner!!