The Stage
The angry plaintiff and the innocent defendant walk into the crowded courtroom one at a time as they’re introduced. The guard asks everyone to please rise then introduces the judge in a loud imposing voice. The stage is set. People across the world can witness the mockery of the American judicial system. Courtroom television is not real justice being served; it is an embarrassing debacle of the litigants’ lives.
The Real Reality
How many viewers know that what they are seeing is not a realistic court proceeding? The set is fabricated to look convincingly like a real courtroom — complete with austere furnishings, stern judge, comatose bailiff, and nervous litigants. The decisive rulings by the acting judge are legal and binding. The participants must sign a legal document stating that they will abide by the fictional court’s decision. Actual government law barely enters into the court proceedings. The average Joe or Jane could easily do the same job as any of the Hollywood judges. Does it take a law degree to get that self-important sneer down just right?
We Eat It Up
The show, Judge Judy, is surpassing even Jerry Springer and Oprah in America’s homes. We seem fixated by the misery of others. We watch in fascination as the litigants squirm under the all seeing eye of Judge Judy. We laugh at the improbable case scenarios: a mother of four children by four different fathers is suing her latest husband who didn’t father any of her children for child support. Do we somehow feel better about our own lives when compared to the lives of these people on courtroom television?
Vigilante Justice
Maybe some feel that real justice is better served outside a real court of law. In the real world there is no reward for being good and the bad guy too often gets away on a technicality. Is this America’s perverse way of getting back at the system that too often lets them down?
The Honorable Judge?
In truth, most of the judges on court TV shows are no longer practicing judges. They hang up their respectable robes for the tawdry gleam of Hollywood money. They don’t have to abide by any judicial rules or laws. They can say what they want, demean and insult as much as they want to get a laugh out of the courtroom crowd. They can rule however they want because the litigants are made to sign a legal waiver beforehand. For example, Judge Joe Brown hands down sentencing for theft in creative, unorthodox ways. In one of his rulings, he allowed the innocent party to enter the offender’s home and take any one thing of their choosing. Is this the real justice that America is seeking? Get the bad guy where it hurts the most.
These Hollywood judges are for the most part cynical and sarcastic. They assume the worst out of everyone that steps in front of their bench; everyone is guilty until proven innocent. Their stinging insults are belittling and embarrassing and appear more like a play for the crowd than any real emotion felt for the defendant or plaintiff. The litigants’ private, often painful lives are put on public display for the entertainment of America. Even Judge Hatchet, the courtroom show known for the judge with a heart, airs other people’s dirty laundry. Often the litigants of Judge Hatchet need a family counselor more than a judge.
If They Look Guilty, They Probably Are
If the judges are the villains, then are the litigants the victims? For the most part, the litigants are low income, uneducated, and minorities. Unable to acquire legal representation, they come to court TV looking for justice for their petty disputes. The audience often wonders why the litigants would go to court over something so trivial. The litigants enter the courtroom with the assumption that the proceedings will be fair and complete. However, they soon realize that it’s the exact opposite. Their day in court is maybe ten minutes long, and their case is decided on how they are perceived by the acting judge. There are no facts or evidence, only he said she said. In the end, the litigant is judged on their character. Do they look guilty?
Benefit of the Doubt
To be fair, let’s say that the judges really just want to help people and the litigants really aren’t as petty as they seem. Judy Sheindlin explains the reason she gave up the bench for Judge Judy:
CODE
For 24 years, I tried to change the way families deal with problems on a very small scale, one case at a time. Now I can use the skills I developed and take my message to more people everyday.
Do either parties see the big picture, or do they see through the rose colored glasses given them by network television?
The Cast
According to columnist Roger M. Grace, who conducted interviews with former litigants of Judge Mathis, the show’s producers coach the participants. The litigants are told to interrupt often and openly insult the opposing side because it makes for an exciting show. Grace writes that “it seems clear there is a coaxing of litigants by the producers to conduct themselves with lack of civility”. If a litigant seems shy about acting this way, they are told that the judge expects it. Both parties are told that the other litigant will be insulting and attacking them, and if they want to win, they will have to verbally fight it out.
When looking for a judge to preside over a court TV show, the producers emphasize their grand plan to the prospective Hollywood judge. The show will inform the audience, educate, and even warn them about possible outcomes to crime and bad behavior. The show will therefore be good for society as a whole. A network waving dollar signs and social charity could cuckold even a savvy judge.
The Verdict
Courtroom TV is a grand performance put on by network television, staged by the producers to be entertainment for America. Participants are paid to appear and the judgments are paid by the show. If a person doesn’t mind being made to look like a fool on national television, casting calls can be found at AudtionFinder.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[Additional] Sources:
Grace, Roger. “Former Litigants on ‘Judge Mathis’: Producers Mandate Interruptions, Insults.” Metropolitan News-Enterprise Online 21 Nov. 2003. http://www.metnews.com/opinion/persp-ctroomtv.htm
“Judge Judith Sheindlin: Presiding Judge.” Judge Judy. http://www.judgejudy.com/Bios/allaboutjudy.asp
Oops there is a small section that probably should be quoted in this post. Is there a way I can edit the post to put this part in quotes?
CODE
For 24 years, I tried to change the way families deal with problems on a very small scale, one case at a time. Now I can use the skills I developed and take my message to more people everyday.
These are Judge Judy's words. Sorry!
