Lest
You Be Judged Watching
these courtroom dramas had me wondering why people choose to bicker over their
disagreements on television, particularly in front of judges whose impartiality
is questionable. by
Michael Abernathy
Supreme
Court Chief Justice Earl Warren once wrote, “It is the spirit and not the
form of law that keeps justice alive.” The current slate of television court
shows are undeniably spirited. Whether or not they keep justice alive is another
matter. In the Louisville, Kentucky, market, there are ten such shows, and numerous
more that don’t air here. Watching them is probably educational, but the
lesson can be disheartening.
All
the shows follow the same format, namely, mediated arbitration on camera. A plaintiff
and defendant enter the courtroom, a voiceover provides the basic facts, and the
litigants are questioned by a presiding judge, who then renders a binding decision.
(The exception to this pattern is Jury Duty, where cases are decided by a panel
of celebrity jurists, but the judge still questions the plaintiff and defendant.)
Some judges focus
more on the emotional well-being of the litigants than they do the letter of the
law or the facts of the case. Glenda Hatchett is one such judge. Many cases in
her court deal with delinquent juveniles and have no basis in the violations of
the civil or criminal code. Usually, the plaintiff in the case is a relative seeking
to put troubled Johnny or Teesha on the right path. Judge Hatchett is more than
happy to send the wayward child to a federal penitentiary, halfway house or center
for tolerance and equality to learn a valuable lesson taught by a former thug,
druggie or bigot. Invariably, the children are “scared straight,” with
Hatchett sending them off to “do great things” amid much hugging and
tears. Equally
compassionate is Judge David Young, who hears small claims cases. Unlike any other
judge on TV in the fact that he’s openly gay, Young frequently uses humor
to ease tensions (as when he winked and told one defendant, “You look like
a drama queen. Just so we’re clear, there’s only one queen in this courtroom
and that’s me"). Young’s hot button is bigotry of any kind, and
the least indication that a litigant is prejudiced means he loses the case, although
Young is surprisingly restrained in determining awards. While
Hatchett and Young look out for underdogs, other judges are more plainly interested
in themselves. Exceedingly critical, they manage cases based on how they feel
about participants. The most egregious of these is also the most popular, Judge
Judy Sheindlin. She appears to make up her mind early in a case (say, before she
sits down), her questioning of participants a formality designed to rationalize
her decision for the audience. Favored litigants are allowed to speak freely,
and Judy frames questions so they might elaborate on their innocence or claim.
Those litigants she dislikes learn of her disdain within moments of speaking:
she interrupts, insults, and mocks them (apparently, she feels it is acceptable
to demean anyone, as long as she adds “sir” or “madam” to
her attack, as in, “You’re an idiot, madam"). She frequently rolls
her eyes as litigants are speaking, glares at them, throws her hands up in the
air, and leans back in her chair with arms crossed. Nothing the losing party says,
does, or produces in the way of evidence can sway this judge. Like
Judy, Judge Greg Mathis frequently overlooks evidence or the lack thereof in his
decisions. Mathis was a tough kid headed down the path to prison before he went
to law school. Unfortunately, he has trouble separating his life experiences from
those of the litigants in his court. In one case, an aunt was suing her niece,
a masculine looking lesbian, for “keying” the aunt’s car. Mathis
repeatedly thwarted the young woman’s attempts to answer her aunt and refused
to hear her side of the story before ruling against her, despite the fact that
the aunt had presented no evidence of the girl’s guilt beyond her suspicions.
In another case, Mathis refused to believe that a young woman had kicked her drug
habit because she had done so without attending a treatment facility, despite
her assurances that she was clean. Alex
Ferrer While Mathis
and Sheindlin are moved by their instincts, there are some judges who are guided
by the law. The best at illuminating how laws and legal precedents should guide
courtroom decisions are Judge Marilyn Milian of The People’s Court and Alex
E. Ferrer of Judge Alex. Their litigants are more likely to have their sides heard
and be subjected to fair rounds of questions. Milian and Ferrer both explain which
laws affect their rulings and how, so that those appearing before them are clear
on why they win or lose. These explanations are informative: basically, if you
plan to sell, buy, pawn, lend or borrow anything with any material or sentimental
value, you need a contract that spells out of every aspect of the transaction,
and to keep any records or receipts of the act for as long as you live, as well
as the dozens of pictures and videos you should have taken of the deal. This should
be done even if the other party is your parents or spouse. Neither
Milian nor Ferrer is hot-headed or excessively emotional, although both, like
Young, use wit to keep litigants at ease. Still, they lose their patience at times
and verbally beat up stubborn or confrontational litigants, like those who display
frightening stupidity. These participants embody a second major lesson (after
the contract lesson): people will sue you for anything. On
Judge David Young, a woman sued her dry cleaner for ruining her clothes, although
it had been two years since she claimed the clothes had been ruined and she had
no receipts to prove that she had ever taken the clothes to this particular shop.
Judge Judy featured the case of a woman suing her hypnotherapist, claiming she
suffered after being scared by a psychic vision revealed by the therapist during
one of their sessions. And on Judge Hatchett, a young mother sued two men to get
DNA tests so paternity could be determined; the tests showed that neither was
the father. Such cases highlight how litigious our society has become. Almost
all judges stress the importance of communication as the proper tool for resolving
familial conflicts, though mediation apparently takes less effort. The
third lesson offered by courtroom dramas is a look at the judicial process. Not
only are the judges real, but the many of the court officers also used to work
as court officers off camera (Officer Pete on Judge Maria Lopez was a fireman).
As in the “real” system, one’s fate in court lies largely in the
hands of the judge (or, as on Jury Duty, the jury), and it is best to hope for
a judge who is fair and even-tempered. Despite the praise she has received for
being tough, Judge Judy represents what is wrong with the US system, in which
sympathy or anger too frequently supersedes logic in determining outcomes. All
that said, these judges are very different from those who preside over most American
courtrooms. Judge Cutler of Jury Duty is the only white, heterosexual male in
the 10 shows I saw. Four are African American (Mathis, Hatchett, Joe Brown of
Judge Joe Brown, and Lynn Toler of Divorce Court), four Latino/a (Ferrer, Milian,
Lopez, and Cristina Perez of Cristina’s Court), and one is gay (Young). If
only our judicial roster was this diverse. Watching
these courtroom dramas had me wondering why people choose to bicker over their
disagreements on television, particularly in front of judges whose impartiality
is questionable. A disclaimer that appears at the end of all the shows might answer
that question: participants are paid to appear, and any judgment against them
is taken from that fee. So, depending on the amount of the judgment, you can be
sued, lose, and still make money, which teaches viewers one final and unfortunate
lesson. It’s possible to behave badly or hurt other people, and profit from
it. |
