What kind of legal enforcement do TV Judges have?
Steve D. asked:
I was wondering what type of legal actions, a tv judge actually has?
Can they have someone arrested for contempt of court?
Can they have someone arrested if they admit they did something illegal?
That kind of enforcement?
I was just curious, because I love judge Joe brown, Judge judy etc.
And was wondering what they can do legally?
I was wondering what type of legal actions, a tv judge actually has?
Can they have someone arrested for contempt of court?
Can they have someone arrested if they admit they did something illegal?
That kind of enforcement?
I was just curious, because I love judge Joe brown, Judge judy etc.
And was wondering what they can do legally?
it is my understand that they and their actions are fully that of a court room judge.
Those 2 are real judges, they can have people arrested
A judge is given authority by the government, not a TV network. Although they may have been judges at one time, they are not acting in official capacity when on TV.
What makes their decision legal is a written agreement that both parties sign, agreeing that the judge’s decision is binding.
The can not have someone arrested, nor can they find them in contempt. However, they can be a witness against them.
none they are there for show only.
They are only arbitrators on TV, they can’t have someone arrested or held in contempt. Their rulings can be upheld in a regular courtroom because of a contract that is signed prior to the civil arbitration.
they dont have much jurisidiction, they are just a small claims court judge, not criminal
They Use The Tapes as evidence, when needed…!!
I hope you pick Trooper3’s answer…It is by far the most accurate….another retired trooper from michigan
Absolutely none. This very situation came up on the People’s Court one time, with Judge Wapner presiding, so it must have been at least 15 or 20 years ago. The plaintiff proved her case as to her legal ownership of a car, but the defendant said that she was not going to turn it back over to her. She intended to keep it, regardless of ownership.
Judge Wapner told her that if they had been in his courtroom, he would have had her thrown into jail for contempt of court. As it was, he couldn’t do anything at all to enforce the ruling. She had signed a paper that she would abide by his decision, but refused to honor it and there was nothing he could do about it then and there.
The plaintiff wanted to pursue it and get her car back, so Judge Wapner told her what to do and where to go to file her case in a real court, and that she would get the transcripts and whatever she needed from that day, and she could pursue her claim that way. She had all the proof she needed to get her car back, just no legal authority in that setting.