You know the drill.  Two litigants open the door and walk into a courtroom, with ominous music and a short description of their grievance and case, and argue and bicker in front of each other and produce witnesses and show evidence while a judge queries them and then abruptly decides their cases.  I pondered, though, as I reflected on the large number of judge shows on television, exactly the economics of a judge show.

Judge Judy is the king (or maybe queen would be the better term) of a judge show.  She seems to have a personality not too unlike mine–a bit brisque, abrupt, skeptical, not inclined to suffer fools gladly, and her show had been rated the highest judge show for 450 weeks up to 2005, largely due to the elegant simplicity and abrupt decisiveness of her show [1].  No long monologues for her, no boring (and false) stories–simply a dramatic three-sided confrontation between two dubious litigants and one ferociously skeptical judge.  Part of her success is her being a pioneer in her field, a chance she got as the result of a Los Angeles Times report and a segment on 60 Minutes [2].

Of course, given the fact that what Judge Judy does is technically binding arbitration and not technically judgment, it is interesting that she has gotten a great deal of criticism.  For example, Judge Wapner, the courtly judge of the first real court tv show (People’s Court) complains that Judge Judy sets a poor example for judges by her abrupt and insulting behavior (a bit of stage performance on her part).  Lawyers (who are not represented on almost any of the judge shows) are also very hostile to the phenomenon of syndicated justice.

Some aspects of the complaints of the American Bar Association about the ethics of syndicated court scenes [3] are a bit self-serving.  For example, it appears as if they take judge shows like Judge Judy to task for appearing to present cases as “real courtroom cases” when they are in reality only binding arbitration, which frees the judges from the normal rules of decorum and evidence.  I suppose a wise viewer might understand or be inclined to research more about the shows and how they work, so that they are not deceived by the glittering scene of a mock courtroom (the Judge Judy set is right next to the Judge Joe Brown set, for example, and both shows tape on alternating weeks).

Why are judge shows so appealing?  For one, the justice system has done a poor job of making its activities accessible to the general public.  The law is a ‘magic’ sort of subject with a latin-based language staffed by morally questionable professionals (judges and lawyers) who actively seek to deceive decision-makers (judges and juries) about the facts of a case.  Such people have fine scruples to complain about the fact that other people do their jobs in a much more entertaining and straightforward manner.  I think the basis of the lawyers’ complaints spring from envy and jealousy, and a desire to protect the secretive process that they control.

As someone who once participated in Teen Court (I was quite the idealistic teenager), I got to participate in a justice system that was not too unlike the judge shows, where teenagers who had pled guilty to various minor offenses and were first-time offenders in the system were able to receive both representation and justice from their peers, who served as lawyers, bailiffs, and jurors (my favorite position was prosecuting attorney), and had certain minimum and maximum sentences including house arrest, up to 50 hours community service, and so forth.  It was an awesome thing to be a part of the justice system (without having to be on trial).

Instead of mocking the desire of people to participate in the justice process, and make serving as a juror a burden, why does the legal community not respond to the desire of people to know what goes on in trials by making the law more accessible?  Are they so afraid that their respect and power result from a corrupt and deliberately confusing and mysterious process that the light of day would ruin their glory and wealth and prestige, despite the fact that television shows about judiges and lawyers are perennially popular because people know that courts are important and that the law is vital, and also that the rule of law is meant to protect the innocent as well as the guilty from the arbitrary rule of selfish elites and tyrannical governments?  As for me, I’ll enjoy a good laugh with Judge Judy–the lawyers on the other hand appear to have a lot to learn.

[1] http://www.slate.com/id/2118556/

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Judy

[3] http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/dispute/essay/syndicourtjustice.authcheckdam.pdf