Tuesday, September 19, 2006


I had high hopes for Justice. I like the cast, I liked the idea of watching thru the trial and verdict and then seeing what "really" happened.

But I'm fast being disappointed and don't see this show lasting.


First, there is no legal stuff going on here at all. It's CSI with lawyers. It's all about big money testing and recreations and juries. Nothing legal. And the stuff they do costs extraordinary amounts of money. I don't think these people know how to write a brief.

Second, we're told they're this big bad defense firm who could care less about whether the client did it or not. But so far, they've won all three cases. And the "really happened" showed that all three times the client was not guilty. Yawn. I want a guilty person who gets off because he has the millions to pay for this team; I want an innocent person found guilty because that happens, also. Otherwise, they're not so big and bad. Instead, despite all the noise and nasty remarks and flashy suits, they're secretly a bunch of Robin Hood Do Gooders. I want a show about a criminal defense firm who doesn't always know if a defendant is guilty or innocent; doesn't care, because the point is a defense, not getting innocent people off; and I want some "really happens" that shows the blunt truth that guilty people get let go and innocent people get sentenced.

Third, back to the money; we've also seen three defendants we aren't terribly rich. Yeah, the first was, kind of, but since his motive was supposedly to get his wife's money, and the money was left in trust for the kid, he wasn't rich enough to afford the defense shown. Where are the big money clients?


Little Willow said...

I have only seen the premiere. I liked the cinematography - especially the lighting and colours at the scene of the crime - and I did not mind the fast pace. However, I haven't seen an episode since.

Liz B said...

I liked the fast pace; I just thought it was much more a fast paced criminal show than a legal show. I also think it would be intriguing if they had a good showrunner to be aware of overlappign stories. For example, each case is a show into itself; but of course, given the timelines from murder to case, sometimes significant time goes by. So, for example, a future show could mention a case that is past (to us) but is present or even future to them.

am I making sense? I think so.