My Name is Judge
Imagine a world in which citizens learn about the court system from watching arbitration proceedings on television. Now imagine those arbitrating proceedings encouraging viewers to sue one another for paltry sums of money and represent themselves pro se (without a lawyer). A recent survey of 569 jury-eligible adults indicated that frequent viewers of “syndi-court” (Podlas, 2002) programs, such as Judge Judy, are likely to do all of the above. (Podlas, 2005) In fact, 79% said that the programs helped them learn about legal rules and the law, 84% would consider bringing a suit, and 56% would consider pro se representation. (Podlas, 2005) If that is not alarming enough, only 13% indicated they had previously attended a court proceeding, including jury service. (Podlas, 2005)
Shows like Judge Judy threaten to promote misconceptions about the justice system in many ways. First, as indicated by the survey, syndi-court shows promote litigation, often for paltry sums of money. Specifically, 64% of syndi-court suits are for less than $500 and 87% are for less than $1,500. (Podlas, 2005) Second, syndi-court “judges” are not actual judges, but rather arbitrators (Judge Judy used to be a family court judge but left the bench in 1996 when her show debuted. But now, she is more celebrity than judge even having a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame!!). (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Judge_Judy) Third, the “damages” are actually paid by the shows’ producers and both plaintiff and defendant receive appearance stipends. (Podlas, 2005) Last, because syndi-court shows create the illusion of a real court proceeding, furthered by the catchphrase from Judge Judy, “real cases, real people,” they create a false impression that viewers are seeing the court system in action. (Podlas, 2002) Joseph Wapner, also previously a judge before reaching fame on The People’s Court, criticized not the show or genre in general but Judge Judy’s “courtroom” behavior saying, “She is not portraying a judge as I view a judge should act. Judge Judy is discourteous, and she's abrasive. She's not slightly insulting. She's insulting in capital letters.” (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Judge_Judy).
Wapner further opined, “She is a disgrace to the profession. She does things I don't think a judge should do. She tells people to shut up. She's rude. She's arrogant. She demeans people. If she does this on purpose, then that's even worse. Judges need to observe certain standards of conduct. She just doesn't do it and I resent that.” (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Judge_Judy). Exactly—and I highly doubt that she doesn’t do it on purpose! Judges need to observe certain standards of conduct—but she is not a judge. I cannot say for sure but I am guessing that her current behavior is partly about grabbing higher ratings and that she would have been more subdued when she was a judge.
The Reach is Vast
How severe is the damage from these shows? As recently as March 3, 2009, Judge Judy matched The Oprah Winfrey Show in the Nielsen Ratings (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/189400-Syndication_Ratings_Deal_or_No_Deal_Rises_Millionaire_Struggles.php?rssid=20065&q=judge+judy) and another week had an estimated 5.827 million viewers as measured by the Nielsen Ratings (). Further, there are nearly twenty syndi-court programs adding to even larger total viewership numbers (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/157970-Judy_Judy_Judy.php). Because of these shows’ popularity, the misconceptions are not isolated to a small sample of potential jurors, arguably the most important cog in the American judicial system. And let’s face it, the people sitting on their couch in the middle of the afternoon watching syndicated television shows are just the type who have enough time and not enough brain power to see the show for what it is. Therefore, it is imperative to correct the misperceptions brought about by Judge Judy and other similar shows (Judge Joe Brown, Judge Mathis, The People’s Court, the list goes on and on). I propose that schools incorporate some kind of practical legal lesson. It is best that our country’s young people learn that it is not prudent to become involved in our legal system, whether as a criminal or as a litigant suing someone for the $60 they borrowed and never paid back. Additionally, even if young people never make it into court as a party, they will likely receive a jury summons at some point in their adult life. This blog entry will examine in more detail some of the problems of the syndi-court genre and how educators can use its powerful impact on pop culture to their advantage.
Presenting Shows As A Real Courtroom
A quick look at one of Judge Judy’s episodes or even at the show’s website (http://www.judgejudy.com/profiles_of_justice.php) makes a casual observer believe it is an actual judge making decisions in an actual courtroom. She wears a black robe, sits atop a high and mighty bench, armed with a gavel and a personal bailiff. Her courtroom aka television set is designed like a courtroom with American flag and all. On its face, it could very well be a small claims court. Judge Judy once even attempted to make a ruling on her show beyond the scope of her arbitration powers; instead of just deciding the personal property dispute in front of her, she made a ruling on child custody and visitation. (http://www.abanet.org/dispute/essay/syndicourtjustice.pdf). Her decisions on custody and visitation were reversed by a real New York family court.
One element of syndi-court shows that lends itself to public misperception is the fact that they are not bound by rules of evidence, procedure, or proper decorum (http://www.abanet.org/dispute/essay/syndicourtjustice.pdf). In another course, I argue that party because of these shows, cameras should be allowed in courtrooms. If anybody wants a copy of that paper, I can provide it upon request. As of March 1, 2009, Minnesota was the thirty-sixth state to allow cameras in its trial courts. Fourteen states and the federal government do not allow cameras in their courtrooms. Some states, such as Florida, even have thirty years of experience with cameras in their courts with no tangible adverse effects, yet many detractors are afraid of potential risks to tainting witnesses, jurors, and generally prejudicing defendants (in a civil or criminal context). The main advantage is for public education and to correct misperceptions with a minor advantage being judicial accountability. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this blog entry, there is access for classes to view real court proceedings either in person (anybody can walk into a court and watch the proceedings) or by obtaining footage from any of the thirty-six states allowing cameras in their courtrooms. In addition, truTV (http://www.trutv.com/index.html), formally CourtTV, broadcasts live daily trial coverage with commentary. This is the network that brought the O.J. Simpson trial into millions of homes nationwide.
Using A Compare and Contrast Approach: Juxtaposing Syndi-Court and Real Court
I don’t feel there is much use for the syndi-court programs in a classroom per se. And I could not find any research studying their use in classrooms. I don’t even think there is a use for clips of the shows as an intro to subject matter as is applicable to most of my previous blog entries. But the fact is, these programs are a part of popular culture. They have a far reach; therefore, they must be dealt with. One of the most appropriate solutions would be for educators to do a compare and contrast from what they see on television to what a real life court proceeding is. The most appropriate age group would probably be middle school—when students start to be more independent and mischievous and where their daytime television options have left the cartoon realm and entered the reality show realm. Also, from the look of some of Judge Judy’s show participants, I am unsure if they ever reached high school. The most appropriate class forum is probably a home room (if used at that age) or a social science type class. By presenting a “fun and games” reality show perspective countered with a real life “you are losing your liberty or property” perspective, students can better appreciate the fact that court rooms are places to avoid, and are not the preferred forum for settling a dispute. Showing the students the difference is more directed to deterring suing people for small sums of money and wasting both the litigants’ and the court’s time where better means of conflict resolution exist. Because most of the time, the viewers of Judge Judy or Judge Mathis file suit in a real court of law, they do not appear on a syndi-court show themselves. (as a corollary, it is also important to demonstrate what it truly means if they break the law; if they break the law, the court system will find them, it is not a choice as it is when they decide whether to sue someone). But, showing students snippets of both syndi-court shows and real trials has its own drawbacks. The portions of real trials shown on truTV are often the more sensational portions of a trial (or more sensational trials such as those of celebrities or particularly notorious crimes ala Scott Peterson), atypical of the common trial. So the bottom line is that real trials seen on television may still skew the true reality.
Viewing A Live Trial
The compare and contrast method is most appropriate to highlight specific differences to rectify false impressions. But for a more thorough clarification on the reality of the court system, a class field trip to the court house is a more desirable option. Some simple cases could be seen from start to finish in a single day. From there, students could recognize that a real court proceeding is not a judge making decisions by the seat of his or her pants (a compilation of Judge Judy quotes exemplary of seat of her pants statements is available here-http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115227/quotes). There are rules a judge must abide by, parties treat each other respectfully, and a judge and jury take a systematic approach to decision making. Because of those complex rules, students would also learn it is also not ideal to represent themselves without an attorney in the event they do find themselves in a courtroom in the future. And more importantly, they would realize that being a party to a court proceeding is real business.
Public Outreach-Utilizing Available Resources
Taking the scared straight approach, educators could invite judges to their classrooms or arrange a visit to a judge’s chambers to meet with the students. Sure, judges are busy with ever increasing case loads and decreasing budgets which deplete a judge’s available support staff. But many judges also understand their role in the greater scheme of things—to preserve order and people’s rights under the Constitution. And what better way to perform that civic duty than to meet with future lawyers, judges, and courtroom participants. I had the honor of taking a course this semester with Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Paul Anderson.
I am unsure if other judges are as receptive to meeting with students but as a state supreme court justice, his schedule is probably as busy as a judge’s schedule gets. He meets on a regular basis with students from at least two Twin Cities law schools, and at least one Twin Cities high school. In addition, he gives behind the scenes tours of the Minnesota Supreme Court to students upon request. While other judges may not make themselves as available as Justice Anderson, I am sure that other judges make themselves available to some extent. Educators should draw upon this wealth of knowledge to illuminate their students’ understanding of one of the three pillars of the United States government, the judiciary. A simple request to a judge would go a long way. If a particular judge is too busy, he or she will probably know colleagues who have more time and are willing to meet with student groups. By having students meet with judges, educators will also be able to address the courtroom decorum problem caused by Judge Judy’s acerbic commentary. As seen in the quotes page above, one of Judge Judy’s favorite things to tell her show’s “litigants” is that they’re stupid. And a quick look at the titles of three books she has authored to the New York Times Best-Seller list demonstrates this further: Don’t Pee on My Leg and Tell Me It’s Raining; Beauty Fades, Dumb is Forever; and Keep It Simple Stupid. Students may not know that judges are professionals and behave like professionals. They do not fling insults at people who walk into their courtroom. As a secondary result, the students will have more respect for and confidence in the judicial system. After all, Judge Judy typically only views a half-page complaint about the case and then hurls insults and makes her decision. (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/157970-Judy_Judy_Judy.php). Once students know that someone actually puts time, effort, and thought in adjudicating, they can more fully understand the role of a judge.
Putting The New Information to Use
I’m not sure if middle schools or high schools still put on mock trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_trial) but it could be an application of what the students learned using the previously discussed methods. It would further solidify the realistic portions of courtroom proceedings and further push away from syndi-court misconceptions. Once again, I’m sure judges and lawyers in the community would be willing to help out with mock trials and make it a fun and informative exercise.
Conclusion
The statistics are frightening. Not only do the syndi-court shows confuse their target audience but they also make the audience members more litigious in general. Because the reach of the shows is vast, educators need to use the shows to their advantage by reinforcing that real courts do not operate in that manner and that suing someone is not the most appropriate action to take. The shows and the “judges” make too much money so the shows are not going anyway. If anything, the high viewing audience probably serves as a catalyst for even more copycat shows. Here is one person asking a forum on ExpertLaw if they should file suit in small claims court or appear on a syndi-court show (http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52324). A third option, preventing the dispute before it happens, might be the best choice but to reach that point may be asking too much. As with the usual disclaimer on my blog, I am not an educator so it is easy for me to overlook the realities of our education system so please comment with more ideas.
PRINT REFERENCES
Kimberlianne Podlas, Blame Judge Judy: The Effects of Syndicated Television Courtrooms on Jurors, 25 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 557, 557 (2002).
Kimberlianne Podlas, Broadcast Litigiousness: Syndi-Court’s Construction of Legal Consciousness, 23 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L. J., 465, 491-93 (2005).
