TV Judge Judy

What’s it about?
Who's it about?
Where did it come from?
The facts
The legal point
Read Judge Judy
Our verdict

"JUDGE JUDY"

What’s it about?

In America, this is known as a "reality courtroom show". Judge Judith Sheindlin, known to her millions of devotees as Judge Judy, presides over a television courtroom where she plies the trade she learnt as a judge in the New York Family Court. If justice delayed is justice undone, then Judge Judy oversees the most profoundly just court in America. Talk about fast, she dispenses decisions in about the time it takes to mix the ingredients of a cake.

It's her attitude, of course. Look no further than your recollections of a tough but fair mum, the withering look that announces your room is not really clean, and no, you can't spend the night at Johnny's house, heaven knows where his parents are half the time. And as you learnt before you left short pants, she always gets to the truth (as Judge Judy tells one teenage litigant, "that's a fairy story you're telling me, young lady"). Judy Sheindlin's a lot like that, although as she says, "I'm not your mother, I'm not going to solve all your problems".

This is a sort of televised small claims court, where the participants agree to accept the decision of a 'judge' who would otherwise have no jurisdiction to interfere with their lives. Retribution is swift and certain - break the rules and expect to be punished.

Who's it about?

Well, it's about Her Honour, of course.

Judy Sheindlin began her career in the law in 1972, prosecuting juvenile delinquency cases for the State of New York. Can't you see it? A young Miss Sheindlin wagging her lawyerly finger at doped-out teenagers caught red handed at some heinous adolescent crime. Not to mention what she might have said to their browbeaten parents ("Is this the way to raise a child?" "Have you ever taken responsibility for anything in your lives?" "Are you people just dumb or what?" "You've both acted like idiots" "You two are full of baloney").

She once said that male delinquents would find her court the "second worst experience of their lives, circumcision being the worst". So successful was she at this line of work that feisty New York mayor Ed Koch (ironically now presiding over his own television court) elevated her to the bench as a judge in the Family Court. Four years later she was appointed the Supervising Judge in Manhattan.

Judith Sheindlin is married to a New York Supreme Court Judge and has five children.

Where did it come from?

Judge Judy Sheindlin was media savvy a long time before she got a regular gig on the small screen. In 1993 she was the subject of an article in the Los Angeles Times, which led to a report on the widely seen American "60 Minutes". From there the long arm of showbiz reached out and grabbed her.

Larry Lyttle, the President of Big Ticket Productions, offered her a courtroom with a substantially larger congregation, and on September 16, 1996, "Judge Judy" was launched. It is produced by an Australian, Peter Brennan, also responsible for such American issues programming as "Hard Copy".

No, the concept didn't begin with O.J, as anyone old enough to remember "Divorce Court" will tell you (by the way, it was the introduction of 'no fault' divorces through the Family Law Act that put an end to those teary confessions in the witness box). That show used actors to portray the litigants in messy divorces, but otherwise the idea is pretty much the same.

Let's look at the field. Joining Judge Judy on Australian television is Judge Joe Brown, who distinguished himself by investigating the killing of Martin Luther King. This is a show developed as a companion to "Judge Judy" by Big Ticket Productions.

The famous Judge Wapner, who pioneered the genre which "Judge Judy" copies, warmed the bench on "People's Court", which ran in the U.S. for 17 years until 1993. He's got a new show nowadays, "Judge Wapner's Animal Court" (yes, we're serious), featuring cranky canines and barking bitches.

And now there's also Judge Mills Lane - you may find this difficult to swallow, but he's the bloke who refereed the notorious heavyweight title fight between Mike Tyson and Evander Hollyfield. You may remember him in the ring when Tyson treated Hollyfield's ear like a Big Mac. To be fair, he was also a prosecutor and judge before he entered the ring.

He's still got his "L" plates hanging from the front of the television bench, but he's as tough as his background suggests - after all, if you're prepared to go eyeball to eyeball with Mike Tyson, you're hardly likely to be intimidated by a dispute over a neighbourhood fence. And like Judge Judy, he bemoans the deflection of responsibility from the individual to society. Check out that Southern drawl when he says "we got a sorry situation here" or "let's get it on". Mills can also be seen in the zany "Celebrity Deathmatch", the MTV production that matches opponents in a fictitious boxing ring, for instance Hillary Rodham Clinton and Monica Lewisnki. Like we said, let's get it on.

Finally there's Ed Koch, the successor to Wapner in the resurrected "People's Court". Perhaps he still thinks he's running the city of New York, because he gives short shrift to disruptive litigants, and like the streets he used to administer, the sets could be spruced up a bit.

The facts This show is BIG, so much so that in its third year it finished No. 1 amongst the first-run talk or court shows, which means it beat "The Jerry Springer Show" and "Oprah". That's an average of over 8,000,000 viewers. Judge Mills Lane has had to deal with the likes of Mike Tyson, but even he thinks Judge Judy is tough! Does Judge Judy make mistakes? Just ask her: "I was wrong once in 1950. I can't remember what it was." She says that smoking is her only vice. Some of Judge Judy's comments on the state of the law:
"My personal belief is that we have to get kids' attention, and fast. A period on a chilly upstate facility can be a great attitude adjuster";
"Lawyers are always asking me if I will cut some slack for their clients. My standard answer is this is not Let's Make A Deal";
"In our country, indigent people are given free legal counsel. That is fine and good, but nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you are entitled to a free ride" Judge Judy may be a tough jurist, but underneath those black robes beats the heart of a Jewish mother. She has declared her son's unmarried status (and he's handsome, too!) on national television. Judge Judy does not believe in time off a sentence for good behaviour. As she says, you're supposed to behave in jail!
The legal point

Isn't there something attractive about justice dispensed quickly and without the red tape? After all, doesn't everyone want more common sense and less courtroom theatrics? Okay, there is a lot to be said for this approach, particularly in the face of daily media stories that highlight some of the absurdities of the legal system.

How is it that a politician receives more in a defamation payout than an honest labourer injured for life in a work accident? Why are the unemployed harassed when white collar criminals hide behind the cloaks of their Queen's Counsels? The stories appear almost daily, and the ire of the public hits the talkback shows like a tidal wave.

But there is some danger in translating techniques of television jurisprudence,skytops supra, confined to a half-hour (minus time for commercial breaks), into the real world. What is sometimes missed in this shoot-from-the-hip approach are the boring and time consuming rules of evidence and courtroom behaviour that essentially protect the rights of the accused. It's too easy to believe that the world needs more of Judy-justice, attractive as this simplistic approach may be. Sheindlin dispenses her own brand of moral justice, which of course is aligned to the majority of middle class viewers exhausted by all things bureaucratic.

For instance, check out any of Judge Judy's court dates for the way the evidence is presented. Generally the two warring parties will slog it out, vigorously interrogated by the judge. So the normal rules of evidence do not operate.

What if a participant railed against something that was said to her by a neighbour, a revelation that concerned the behaviour of her ex-husband? Under the Commonwealth Evidence Act, this testimony could not be given in an Australian court because it is 'hearsay'. This means that a witness cannot give evidence of a statement made to that witness by someone who is not also called to back it up. In other words, you can't simply get on the witness stand and say that another person said something in order to confirm your own statement - you have to get that person to prove the truth of it. This sort of thing happens all the time on "Judge Judy", although it should be said that it also occurs in many tribunals hearings in Australia.

Why is the hearsay rule important? Because it allows the corroborating witness (the person called to back up the conversation) to be cross examined - for instance, they can be questioned about their recollection of the conversation, its context, the reliability of the original evidence, their demeanour at the time etc.

Judge Judy's participants sign a contract by which they agree to abide by her decision. What is the legal position if one of the participants refuses to abide by the agreement and says to hell with Judge Judy's decision?

Well, it's still a contract, even if the action is played out before millions of viewers and the court is a television studio. The disgruntled participant can take that contract and get it enforced in a real court.

Is there a parallel in the real world? Sure, its called 'mediation', and it's very much in vogue as a reasonable alternative to the costs of traditional litigation. This is a type of dispute resolution where an impartial arbitrator/mediator facilitates communication between the parties and attempts to gain an agreement to settle the problem.

Read Judge Judy

Judge Judy is not just a television jurist, she's also a best-selling author.

First, let's look at "Don't Pee On My Leg And Tell Me It's Raining: America's Toughest Family Court Judge Speaks Out". The book is divided into ten chapters, each a 'lesson' gleaned from Sheindlin's experience on the bench. Her targets are not just the criminals, she's also pretty disgusted by the exorbitant costs of the American social welfare system.

In fact this is a treatise on the state of American society, from the disintegration of the nuclear family to the exaltation of the victim. What's the answer? According to this self-styled mentor, "self-discipline, individual accountability and responsible conduct" will save the day.

This is succour to the masses who believe the rights of the criminal have taken precedence over the rights of the victim. It's hard to read this book and not shake your head at the occasional silliness of government interference in the lives of otherwise law-abiding citizens, or the vaudevillian antics of some morally ambivalent members of the legal profession. Nevertheless, in the real world some of these quick-fixes seem a little far-fetched. This book is a boon for those who believe more common sense and less regulation will save the day.

Next there's "Beauty Fades, Dumb Is Forever", her 1998 release. The title derives from a typically incisive piece of advice the future judge received from her father: "Beauty fades," he used to say, "but dumb? Dumb lasts forever." In other words, her dad made it clear that she should cultivate her intellect. Perhaps this is the origin of Sheindlin's oft repeated gesture on the television bench, where, pointing at her head, she responds to a fabricated excuse with the rhetorical admonition, "does it say stupid here?"

This is a book that attempts to expose the foibles Sheindlin sees in the behaviour of some women, particularly their propensity to defer to men instead of their own judgement. She interweaves stories from her own life as well as those of successful contemporaries to illustrate her points. This is a book about self-esteem and self-respect, and although it sometimes preaches, her teaching is clear and restorative - smart is forever, and as many parents would agree, that's not a bad message at all.

Our verdict

Why is this diminutive hell-raiser with a Brooklyn accent so popular? As we always remind our readers here at Law in the Lounge, the law is inherently teeming with drama. In the U.S., there's more than a touch of the O.J.s in the recent revival of this genre. There is clearly a need to see the punishment fit the crime, and the televised shortcuts to summary judgement appeals to those millions of long suffering viewers of the O.J. debacle.

This is in-your-face justice, more akin to the retributive style of the Old Testament than any new fangled notions of progressive jurisprudence. 'Tough but fair' is Judge Judy's battle cry, and she believes that people should take responsibility for their actions. As she says, the shifting of responsibility from the individual to society has led to a protracted adolescence amongst Americans. Does she depict the courtroom as a place without compassion?

Maybe, but let's be honest, if you check into Judge Judy's universe you have to accept a certain amount of showbiz, it is television after all. Just don't expect to find her deferring to a victim's mentality, and among working middle class, whether in Australia or the U.S., this is clearly an appeal to populist attitudes. It's a lot like a B-grade crime show, where the bad guys get their just desserts and we exit comfortable in the knowledge that justice has been done (some of the better shows, like "Law and Order", make it clear that the bad guys often get away with their crimes).

As Judge Judy says, it doesn't say 'stupid' on her forehead, and undoubtedly she brings a good deal of experience as a jurist to her daily forays. Not to mention huge dollops of common sense and wisdom. Just don't take it too seriously - you be the judge.



Want us to tell you when we review another TV show?

Read this: The legal information contained above is intended to be general information about the law. It is not a substitute for legal and other professional advice. Lawscape Communications P/L does not accept responsibility for loss to any person, who either acts or does not act because of this information.