Judge for one day eps. 7
Judge for one Day
When a crime is committed we all agree that the perpetrator should be caught and judged
There - however – our agreement stops – for what should the sentence be? And who’s to decide what’s fair – and what’s not?
In each program of Judge for one Day 8 ordinary people are invited to watch a dramatized reconstruction of a real life crime – and give their spontaneous ruling for the crime
Then the reconstructions presents them with the migrating and aggravating circumstances of the case story – and the judges are put into two teams – soft- and hardliners.
The debate continues, as the teams is challenged to make a joint sentence, where after all 8 judges meet again and is – mildly spoken – choked to hear the sentence of the other team.
From here the debate turns into yelling and even crying – as the 8 judges are split in to ‘camps’, and everybody realizes, that no matter how much you feel the sentences of today are too hard or too soft, then about half the population of fellow citizens tend to disagree.
The format suits all kinds of crime. We experienced that the agitated debate, were as hot and wild during discussions on vigilante homicides and bank robbery on minors, as on relatively small theft by a home nurse or a smuggler of hashish.
We also manage to take very emotional cases like sexual assault on a very small minor, and the drink – driving costing a young mother and her 2 children their lives.
No matter what case we chose, the debate amongst the judges – and by the viewers on the internet – got extreemley heated, but yet sober – as we all agree the subject of the matter is very, very serious – and thus gives the program an intensity of importance and urgency making you need to see; what were the real verdict.
In all 8 programs the judges – having seen the exact same reconstruction – varied in wildly in their sentences.
In the case of the hashish smuggler, 4 judges wanted to let him go, with a minor slap on the wrist, as 2 wanted prison for 10 years! In case of knife stabbing into mortal danger 2 judges wanted to give the assailant probation, where 4 wanted 6 years of prison. Even the homenurse thieve split the judges in two arguing parties. Here the issue that it should be a migrating circumstance, that she were a single mother, got the crazy wild argument. Does that excuse her crime? But who will gain from taking a mother from her 2 children – placing them in an orphanage during her jail time?
We decided upon 8 different types of crimes for the season, and then researched crimes, that also had turning points – migrating and aggravating, to make sure the viewers and our 8 judges of the day, got the feeling of reading and reacting reaction to what could have been front page news in the tabloid.
Then they got to know circumstances that put the crime in a more human perspective.
And finally they were forced to participate and take into account, that others – with the exact same citizen rights – might disagree strongly, as the emotions arguments clashed with the rational.