Current Events > This show cannot possibly be real, right?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbthqJSySlU

Like...what the fuck? There are a ton of problems that come to mind right away.
---

april fools

published march 9th

oh
---

obviously some legal loophole they're leaving out
---

All shows, reality or not, are scripted to at least some degree. This will be no exception.
---

Sounds like Judge Judy, but with people who don't actually know the law.
---

Lol what the fuck. I can't imagine any verdict being legally binding unless the defendant waves his rights or something (which I don't think you can legally do).

Brings a whole new meaning to jury of your peers though.
---

Presumably this will be for arbitration not criminal cases.

Or it will just be 100% fake bullshit.
---

talk about court of public opinion :^)
---

In most of these shows the cases are civil matters that have no legal ramifications. They are essentially just saying "You screwed up and agree to pay this price to avoid any real charges". That is most likely what this is and if the person refuses to pay afterwards then things might escalate.
---

pikachupwnage posted...

Presumably this will be for arbitration not criminal cases.

Or it will just be 100% fake bullshit.

Even arbitration wouldn't work necessarily though right? Wouldn't "agreeing" on a mediator be impossible due to the faceless void of votes that pour in?

I'm assuming it's for civil cases and small claims.
---

Even then, I don't see how they can enforce the decisions as legally binding, nor do I see how they can get through all of the relevant facts in a presumed hour of airtime, nor do I really think that having totally open public voting on any cases in virtually any scenario is a good idea.

The whole thing just seems like a mess, and I actually thought it was an April Fools' Day joke before I saw the date as well.
---

the verdict can't be legally binding as verdicts rendered by juries must be unanimous.

I have a hunch that "the verdict may be legally binding" actually means "the verdict is legally binding if it happens to coincide with the verdict rendered by the real jury."
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

pikachupwnage posted...

Presumably this will be for arbitration not criminal cases.

Or it will just be 100% fake bullshit.

Even arbitration wouldn't work necessarily though right? Wouldn't "agreeing" on a mediator be impossible due to the faceless void of votes that pour in?

I'm assuming it's for civil cases and small claims.

arbitration's just a contractual agreement, if the contract is "you'll agree to abide by the will of the hive mind" well there you go.
---

It's not a sitting judge, so she's probably a arbitrator or something now, and the people on the show signed away their right to a proper hearing so I guess this is fine.

EDIT: and this might actually be good for the public discourse, assuming the lawyer make effective legal arguments are aren't just grandstanding for media attention. Give some insight into what a lawyer's job is.
---

pikachupwnage posted...

Presumably this will be for arbitration not criminal cases.

Or it will just be 100% fake bullshit.

Yup, just like the Carbanero effect
---

lilORANG posted...

EDIT: and this might actually be good for the public discourse, assuming the lawyer make effective legal arguments are aren't just grandstanding for media attention. Give some insight into what a lawyer's job is.

lol yeah I'm sure it'll be a great insight into the legal system
---

Uggh, yeah, guy, stop doing the stupid diamond hand sign, we get it by now.
---

IIRC basically the contestants are agreeing to an outlandish Arbitration. It's the same thing that happens on stuff like Judge Judy.
---

interesting
---

I missed the first bit, but this seems to be a murder trial...? Which returns me to my initial point of "What the hell".
---

This is basically just Judge Judy but with viewers voting. Doesn't seem that interesting.
---