by Lawrence Kaplan

Growing up in the 1950’s t.v.’s Divorce Court was my first exposure both to divorce and courtroom drama. Yes, Perry Mason was on the air in those years but it was on too late for an 8 year old.

As I remember the Divorce Court cases were rather mild. Couples arguing over who should take out the garbage and troublesome Mother-in-laws. Remember the 50’s were the time when the favorite TV shows were “Father Knows Best” and “Lassie”. Jerry Springer and DNA paternity tests were decades away.

Then in the 1980’s The People’s Court with Judge Wapner publicly aired real small claim cases.
I was an avid car freak at the time. I recall several cases about supposed faulty car repairs where the disgruntled car owners were suing their mechanics. With my automotive background I realized Judge Wapner had absolutely no idea of the issues involved. Yet it didn’t really matter. He was quite willing to pass judgement without understanding. It wasn’t until law school that I found out that facts don’t matter to judges. Cardozo established that precedent in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. Despite misunderstanding the case completely, he ruled and established a precedent lasting a hundred years. Zipursky thinks the holding of the case deals with product liability. The real holding is justice is blind to facts- doesn’t matter which party gets shafted as long as your opinion gets cited.

Now we have Judge Judy raising the standards for t.v. Judges. Even Judge Wapner is shocked, “Judge Judy is discourteous, and she’s abrasive. She’s not slightly insulting. She’s insulting in capital letters”

I had never understood the great appeal for these shows. Simply voyeurism and a soap opera alternative? That may explain the viewing audience, but why would the parties agree to appear knowing that at least one will be humiliated on National TV? (They only get $100 for their appearance on the show.)

Maybe the attraction is the opportunity to be heard. Telling your story, venting your anger, having someone to listen (Judge Judy at her peak had 10 million viewers). And timeliness. No endless delays for your attorney’s personal problems. No motions designed to up his fees.

The audience wants a judge who is emotionally involved, not a frigid automaton in black robes. If a party’s story lack credibility, Judy’s temper will flare. She wags her finger and proclaims “Liar, liar, pants on fire.” (OK, so she’s not Holmes) The parties love the possibility of real vindication. Having your opponent publicly trashed by Judge Judy’s sarcastic words and biting tongue is a victory far sweeter than a simple cash settlement.

That’s what I want to be part of. Not pushing papers around and making arguments I don’t believe. Real justice. Moral Responsibility. I want to clerk for Judge Judy.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 26th, 2010 at 7:33 pm and is filed under Culture Forum Blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.