Courtrooms as TV Entertainment Pictures
 |
| Courtrooms as TV Entertainment |
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
www.flickr.com
|
Archive for May, 2007
Binding Arbitration and Small Claims
The audience that attended the Forum: Courtrooms as TV Entertainment, learned many things on the night when we hosted Judges Marilyn Milian and Alex Ferrer. First, as an incentive for parties to opt out of small claims court and to enter the legal arena of reality TV, the producers agree to pay the cost of the losing side–meaning that whatever monetary judgment is handed down, the defendant will not be responsible for paying it. The producers of the show will pay the damage award. Second, these TV courtrooms scour the country for interesting, sometimes salacious cases that are scheduled to be heard in small claims court. Then they determine whether the parties to the action, along with their claims, would make for engaging, compelling television. The result is binding arbitration–whatever happens on television in resolving the case, whatever judgment the judges reach, is final. There is no appeal. But would this formula work with more complex cases, those that are not heard in small claims court? And why is it that people choose to opt out of the essential privacy of a state court proceeding in order to be humiliated in front of a national television audience?
Emotion in the Courtroom
We screened a few clips of our judges, sitting on the bench, ruling on cases, and in some instances, functioning m0re like real people with actual emotions than cold jurists. In fact, in one clip we saw Judge Milian tearfully telling a plaintiff that it was time for him to get on with his life. In another clip, Judge Ferrer had completely disarmed a plaintiff by engaging in a conversation that seemed too personal and would have been regarded as undignified if not altogether inappropriate in a more conventional court of law. Both of our guests, however, agreed that such displays of human behavior humanized the legal experience for most people, rather than having the law come across as cold, unfeeling, and remote from basic human emotions. Bringing judges down from their pedestals of emotional indifference builds greater trust with those who appear before them and provides citizens with a stronger connection to justice and a greater sense that they have actually received a true hearing and their day in court. As Judge Milian said: “The people love us. What they don’t love are the judges who have treated them badly and shown them no respect.”
Judging or Entertaining?
A fair amount of the lively discussion was devoted to the question: If the courtroom cases are serious, and they are intended to impart important moral lessons about the differences between right and wrong, then should it matter who the plaintiffs and defendants are, and how they, and their claims, come across on the TV screen? Both of our judges were quick to point out that their producers recruit interesting cases and the people attached to them. These courtrooms shows may be authentic demonstrations of dispute resolution, but they also have the burden to hold the attention of TV audiences, who might otherwise switch to a soap opera, a cable movie, or even worse, a competing courtroom TV show. There is always the power and prerogative of the remote control. But this invites the question: Aren’t all disputes interesting in some way, or is it that what’s most important are the personalities behind the disputes. Judges respond to people as people; they don’t merely, and coldly, only deal with the legal claim as a matter of law, divorced of the emotion that is an indispensable part of the cases before them.
Courtrooms as TV Entertainment: Charasmatic Courtroom Jurists
Judge Marilyn Milian, from “The People’s Court, and Judge Alex Ferrer, from “Judge Alex,” were fantastic guests of the Forum. Everyone in the audience was treated to two articulate, telegenic, passionate, and hilarious jurists. Indeed, while their syndicated television shows are wildly successful, I think they both agreed that when not filming their TV shows they should consider taking their act, as a pair of TV judges, on the road. Even a sitcom would work. They are obvious friends who finish each other’s sentences and almost know what the other is about to say. It was funny when Judge Milian, at one point, invoked Lucy at the chocolate factory, because the good judge is very much cut from the same cloth as the charismatic Lucy Arnez/Ball, which is ironic, since both Milian and Ferrer are Cuban Americans, as was Desi Arnez. The rapport and chemistry of our TV judges, and their ease in front of a live audience, was interesting to observe, because unlike our past Forum guests, these judges are on television, so they have a burden to entertain in front of the camera, whereas our prior guests were mostly writers whose words are read by others and who live mostly on the page.
-
Please sign up on our e-mail list to receive information about upcoming Forum events.
