Episode 16 – Judge Faith

 

This week’s discussion: Judge Faith, Season 2, Eps. 1-4, 7-10.  Watch it on Amazon Prime Video. Watch it on YouTube.

Next week’s discussion: Hell’s Satans, Season 1, Eps. 1-5, 7-8.  Watch it on Tubi TV.

This week your intrepid hosts return to the courtroom for the show Judge Faith.  We go into an in-depth discussion of several episodes, often directly comparing the show with our previous venture into courtroom reality TV, Divorce Court, which we discussed back in Episode 5.

We discuss the commonalities in structure between the two shows as well as their shared strange tonal variation, while remarking on the considerable differences, such as Judge Faith’s more distant and legalistic temperament and the more substantive ways in which this show actually interacts with the legal system.  There is also quite a bit of discussion about issues of socioeconomic class and education and how the ‘informal agreements’ common among the American ‘underclass’ are a poor fit for our legal system.  We end with a discussion about the problematic nature of ‘law as entertainment’ and the intersection between educational status and legal complexity, with Mike adding a postscript to his critique of how the classist perspective of courtroom reality TV often misses the forest for the trees.

Show Notes and Links

1:20 / Thankfully Christian numerologists were wrong for once

2:45 / Introducing this week’s show

3:40 / The concept of the show (our episode on Divorce Court is here)

4:43 / Mike takes JS for a trip down Memory Lane

6:48 / Our impressions of the host (You can see her Miss America talent routine here)

8:02 / The ‘expert witnesses’ made an impression on JS

8:55 / Mike was struck by the judge’s legalistic demeanor

10:08 / Mike thought her lawyerliness made her seem more distant than Judge Toler

10:59 / Why Mike hoped this would be more interesting and distinct (Judge Faith’s Twitter)

13:13 / What stuck out to JS from Episode 1

14:33 / Episode 2 – eviction dispute

15:41 / This episode had quite a bit of legal explanation

16:40 / The tonal variation of the show – this episode was much more realistic

17:23 / The motif of ‘informal agreements’

18:45 / Claimants often come from the lower socioeconomic strata

19:31 / Discussing the case ruling

20:28 / The difficult situation of the claimants

21:43 / Episode 3 – a serious look at a light-hearted matter

22:45 / Crossover exposure for the show LA Hair

24:40 / The economics of court TV payouts and reputational hits

26:20 / Blowing over the laptop case from Episode 4

27:18 / JS’s favorite case – the Tinder scam artist (Mike mentions the Cecil the Lion brouhaha)

29:29 / The plaintiff stood out for being a ‘doctor’ (but not a real doctor)

31:06 / A brief aside on demographics of the claimants

31:44 / Discussing the legal merits of the ruling

33:21 / The difference between arbitration and regular court

34:20 / Episode 7 – thefts and theatrics

35:12 / How much was the laundry case choreographed?

36:40 / The humorous tone of this episode

37:07 / The (possibly dubious) ruling; Mike mentions kabuki theater

39:01 / The second half – possibly sponsored by Nutri-Bullet

39:56 / The wrinkle to the case – criminal vs. civil

40:48 / Episode 8 – accident claim dispute

41:33 / The most interesting and realistic case

42:37 / Discussing the complexity of the ruling

44:00 / The show’s weird use of ‘my friend’

44:24 / Episode 9 – tent revival in a courtroom

45:12 / The class and educational background of the claimants

45:41 / This episode seemed like a weird outlier to Mike

46:38 / Did the actual case even matter?

47:30 / This episode seemed to be a strong reflection of what this show’s target audience craves; Mike mentions Tyler Perry

48:53 / Mike briefly goes over the ID theft case in Episode 10

50:43 / The problematic nature of ‘law as entertainment’

51:58 / JS compares this style of show to the ‘CSI Effect

53:03 / Is there any potential redeeming educational value to courtroom reality TV?

54:18 / The educational episodes seemed few and far between

54:51 / This show engages more directly with the legal system than Divorce Court, which might give it more potential to mislead the average viewer about the realities of the court system

55:30 / Does the inherent complexity of law subtly bias the legal system against those less educated?

58:32 / JS argues that the legal system does attempt to take into account those issues

1:00:35 / Does the law have potential to alienate poorer citizens who rely on ‘informal agreements’?  Can the complexities be fixed or is it just the nature of the beast?

1:01:54 / The law is often complex because society is complex and human relationships are complex

1:02:53 / A brief aside on class issues and the show’s ‘law-and-order’ perspective; Mike compares the ID theft case in Episode 10 to the Equifax breach (Mike didn’t mention his similar critique in the Divorce Court episode, but consider this a coda)

1:04:53 / JS wraps up with some reflections on how his barometer has changed

1:05:15 / Introducing the show for the next episode; Mike mentions Sons of Anarchy and Jackass

1:06:45 / Our announcements (for real this time): email us, rate/review us, and subscribe

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s