We were operating under the misunderstanding that Judge Judy was a broadcast of an actual small claims court somewhere, but then our legal beagle intern Alex informed us that it’s really just arbitration dressed up to look like small claims court.
The power the judge has over the parties is granted by the contract of adhesion they sign to appear. If the defendant loses, the tv product team pays the plaintiff the judgment fee. If the judge finds for the defendant, both parties receive an appearance fee. The judges are not bound by real rules of procedure, evidence, or even behavior. Since it’s a contract of adhesion, a decision can only really be successfully appealed if the decision falls outside the scope of what’s in the contract.
So while the cases and people may be real, the courts could be held on the bridge of the Starship Enterprise and still have the same effect. It’s all just part of the collective hallucination we call television.
The concern is that in making syndi-courts look like real courts, they can warp potential jurors attitudes about how a court case should be conducted. In a survey when asked whether a judge should be aggressive with litigants or express displeasure with testimony, 26.32% of non-frequent viewers said yes, and 63.76% of frequent viewers said yes.
Syndi-Court Justice: Judge Judy and Exploitation of Arbitration (PDF) [ABANET.org]
RELATED: What People On Judge Judy Don’t Know
More From Consumerist
-
Judge Allows Closed-Captioning Lawsuit Against Netflix To Proceed
-
Good To Know: Stripping In The Airport Security Line Is Totally Cool With The Constitution
-
Court Says Cops Can Track GPS Signal Data On Pay-As-You-Go Phones Without A Warrant
-
Judge Tries, Again, To Slap Wells Fargo With $203 Million For Overdraft Policy
-
American Airlines Gets Court-Approved Labor Deal With Pilots At Long Last
@cabooglio: I like the cut of your jib.
Judge Judy scares me. She is always yelling at everyone “That’s bologni…it makes no sense”.
@zephyr_words: Actually, there’s some question about her being a “judge.” In most states, judges are forbidden to accept money for acting as a judge in any capacity EXCEPT when in their courtrooms being paid by the state. It’s frequently an ethics violation that can result in being disbarred.
I recall a few years back there was some brujaha over Judge Joe Brown, who I want to say is admitted in Kentucky?, because his state had particularly stringent rules about judges accepting money for related services.
@Rectilinear Propagation: “I recall reading an article a long way back about how cops and lawyers were worried that CSI would influence potential jurors’ ideas about what kind of evidence they should be able to present.”
CSI and its ilk certainly influence jurors’ ideas of how SOLID the evidence should be. We’ve had local cases where jurors demanded to know things like where the DNA evidence was (when there was none available at the scene) and why the bite marks weren’t conclusive or whatever, and didn’t seem to get real-world forensics isn’t quite so neat as it is on an hour show.
There have also been a couple cases where jurors refused to convict in a CLEAR case when the evidence was witness testimony, but no forensic evidence had been gathered (because it was clearly unnecessary and we have a small budget for that kind of thing in my county).
@GitEmSteveDave: Rusty’s gun only shot dusty blanks. No innuendo here!
@Eyebrows McGee: oh, I should add — because Judge Joe Brown was apparently still active — not retired — at the time.
I laugh at this being news although I guess we have americans that are that stupid. Hell I’ve watched judge judy before where she talks about the “court” being arbitration. They are open saying it is.
This is pretty much standard fare for all the court shows. Oh and I hate Judge Judy….
In case you didn’t know, professional wrestling isn’t real either. don’t make me get into the Santa Clause and Easter Bunny thing.
@topgun: Is the “Santa Clause” another of those confounding legal terms like “Contract of Adhesion”?
@topgun: Is the “Santa Clause” another one of those fancy legal terms like “Contract of Adhesion”?
@DrGirlfriend:
Sign me up.
Sears sold me a faulty dilithium crystal and refuses to replace it…
The “People’s Court” show way back in the day had a on-air disclaimer that the narrator read that said something to the effect of “Both parties have agreed to dismiss their case and have their dispute settled here… [dramatic music] in THE PEOPLE’S COURT”
@DallasDMD: From [money.cnn.com] :
“[Judge Judy's] biggest mistake, however, is [the show's] attention to the law. Koch, who as mayor appointed [Judy] Sheindlin to the family-court bench in 1982, says … ‘And I happen to know her. She’s a very nice lady. Judge Judy has said she makes decisions on the basis of common sense. And I have said, “That’s not what the law is all about.” We do it on the law. This is not a court of compassion; this is a court of law.’”
So I guess the common-sense accusation was trash-talking from Judge Koch of The People’s Court (1997-1999). But by her own account from the same article,
“For a judge, she seems surprisingly nonchalant about the law. ‘The law is supposed to be based on common sense. But in the last 25 or 30 years, legislatures have grafted onto the common-law statutes that sort of fit a particular scenario,’ she explains. ‘It’s something that I was frustrated with as a sitting judge in New York.’”
@belisle: Oh crap, I posted the wrong link. I meant “from [www.time.com],9171,988960,00.html “. If only editing was allowed…
I hate you Gawker Media’s Comment system. [preview.tinyurl.com] will get you there.
Ummm, this was already well known…you have to be an idiot not to realize that it isn’t a real small claims court.
The concern is that in making syndi-courts look like real courts, they can warp potential jurors attitudes about how a court case should be conducted.
Absolutely, which is why Jury Duty should be banned. People who can’t tell the difference between TV and real life do not constitute “a jury of my peers”.
Besides, can’t the same be said for every courtroom movie/tv drama ever made?
It’s not real? wow… who saw that coming?
@commenters saying that this is common knowledge:
Where were you guys in the earlier post when commenters were comparing Judge Judy to Ruth Bader Ginsburg? I don’t think it’s as well known as you think it is.
I still remember the time Doug Lwelyn got bit by a dog. Funny he didn’t have his case settled in his forum, the People’s Court
Wow, I knew this when I was like 12.
I was on Judge Judy. I had a real small claims case against me and a producer called me! They offered me money to go on the show… the money was enough to sacrifice my dignity.
@CT03
I don’t believe for a second that someone knows who Ginsburg is, but doesn’t know Judge Judy is fake.
Seriously.
The way I understand (back in the Wapner days anyway) how payments work is that there is a shared pool that both sides get paid from. The winner gets the portion from the other persons payment to cover the winnings.
For example, (making numbers up) The pool is $5,000.
If there is no money rewarded, they both get $2,500.
If the plaintiff wins $2,000, let’s say, the plaintiff gets their share plus $2,000 from the defendant’s share for a total of $4,500 and the defendant gets $500.
This is what I got from reading the little blurb at the end of the original People’s Court years and years ago. It may be totally wrong now.
This would be a good post if this were April 1. Witty. Sarcastic. Sophisticated ruse.
But it’s not April 1. So you come off like a contestant on Judge Judy.
Oh. And yes. I did use the word “contestant”.
And the world really isn’t flat. And…
God! I can’t even believe we’re posting on this. Maybe this is a Consumerist stupid test to see how many of us will bite.
I’d actually like to see Kirk as the bailiff
@DrGirlfriend:
It’s not the trials that I worry about with JJ-type shows intersecting with real life: it’s the pro se litigants. There’s very little respect for the bench in the court I work in with the pro se litigants — they swear, shout over each other, dress like trash, and are completely ignorant about even the most basic rules of evidence (for example: you can’t hand write additional ‘evidence’ onto a bill so that your Visa Statement that only shows a payment to Macy’s has ‘sexy lingerie for his GIRLFRIEND’ on it in divorce court because you cannot find the actual receipt. True story, by the way.)
I once clerked for a judge who asked a litigant “Do you see a doily around my neck?” When the litigant responded “No” the judge replied, “then stop trying to do me like I’m Judge Judy! This is a real court, not television where — much like wrestling, game shows, and Survivor — nothing you see is real! Now act like a civilized human being or get out of my courtroom!”
Also, and I really hate myself for even thinking of typing this but: in defense of Judge Judy, she’s a *family* court judge, and family court isn’t a court strictly of law, but of equity — at least in this state. There is (contrary to popular belief) no law that says “if he cheats on you, you get x% of what he has”. That’s why pre-nups are important if you have cash. There’s also very few laws dealing with who gets custody in dissolution (divorce) or non-dissolution (not divorced/never married) cases, etc. This state only came up with strict rules for child support in the last ten years. Grandparents, by law, have no right to visitation. Etc. Family court is about the judge doing what they are charged to do: finding what is “fair, equitable, and what is in the best interest of the parties” when the parties cannot or will not do so for themselves.
@Eyebrows McGee: I *hope* there was more than just witness testimony in that case, as we all know just how unreliable witnesses (even in large numbers) can be.
I enjoy watching judge Judy. I think she is a touch no non sense person. Perhaps we could clean up this country if she was in the white house! Bring the good old boys club to their knees