REMOTE JUSTICE: TUNING IN TO SMALL CLAIMS, RACE, AND THE REINVIGORATION OF CIVIC JUDGMENT

• Date: 09 December 2003
• Published date: 09 December 2003
• Pages: 261-282
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1059-4337(03)30011-0
• Author: Valerie Karno

REMOTE JUSTICE: TUNING IN TO

SMALL CLAIMS, RACE, AND THE

REINVIGORATION OF CIVIC

JUDGMENT

Valerie Karno

ABSTRACT

Small Claims Court Television Shows offer spectators an opportunity to

re-envisiontheir relationship to legal and civic judgment. Through presenting

racial and regional judges, these shows re-imagine legal judgment as a

necessary and inclusive component of everyday citizenship. Reflecting

Reality TV, Tabloid TV Talk Shows, and the History of African-American

representationon television, shows like Judge Mathis and Judge Judy demon-

strate the contradictions inherent in racial representations on television. By

showing the ways in which television performance reflects the performative

aspect of legal discourse already operating upon us, the judges use stupidity

as a way to pedagogically energize a lower class, disenfranchisedviewership

into newly rehearsing their roles as active citizens.

Do you Think I’m Stupid? Judge Judy

I Wasn’tBorn on a Plantation! Judge Mathis

In the wake of the current political apathy we have seen in low voter turnout

and a widespread passive engagement with our democratic political structures,1

Punishment, Politics, and Culture

Studies in Law, Politics, and Society,Volume 30, 261–282

Copyright © 2004 by Elsevier Ltd.

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1059-4337/doi:10.1016/S1059-4337(03)30011-0

261

262 VALERIEKARNO

television has presented us with a curious arena of participatory judgment for our

citizenry: Televised Small Claims Court Shows. These shows, which focus on

legal (and moral) dispute resolution, invite spectators to enter the realm of legal

judgment alongside the judges presiding over the cases. Filmed in courtroom-like

decor, these showsare as staged, or as authoritative as are other performative forms

of legal discourse which enlist us daily in deferring to legal authority.The cases we

viewers see are taken largely from cases already filed and ready for trial in Small

Claims Courts across the nation. Indeed, the representations are boundaried by the

televisual medium which displays them and provides viewing for their audiences.

Andyet,thesepseudo-RealityTVCourteventsoffer a new form of public arena for

citizenstorehearsethe virtues of deliberate and communicative democracy2asthey

flex and strengthen their capacities for judgment. Though these televised programs

do not themselves present us with an authentically civic arena of exchange, they

nevertheless do create conditions of possibility for the common citizenry to engage

in exercises of self-governance fundamental to the democratic state.

The proliferation of Small Claims Court Shows currently include 11 airing

across a range of networks: Judge Judy, Mathis, Joe Brown, Hatchett, Mills Lane,

Texas Justice, and the longer running Divorce Court and People’s Court are the

most popular. Televised Court shows, beside the entire channel of Court TV, also

includes in some areas, “Moral Court” and “Wapner’s Animal Court,” adding to

the list of shows which historically aired for short times like “Power of Attorney,”

where famous attoneys like Christopher Darden defended clients. In each of these

shows, plaintiffs and defendants are brought to the show in largely one of two

ways: either the litigants themselves request to appear on the show through a form

offered on the show’swebsite or by phoning the particular show, or the show itself

phones litigants who have filed cases in State Small Claims court, and asks if they

would like to appear. Litigants’ incentive for appearing on these shows is that

they are compensated for their appearances, whether they win or lose. The shows

generally pay the entire damages award, as well as each participant’s nominal

appearance fee. Additionally, litigants may receive roundtrip airfare to the city

of taping, as well as hotel fare for one or two nights.3Though the cases are State

based, Judge Judy, The People’s Court and Judge Mills Lane being taped in New

York, for instance, Texas Justice taping in the Houston area, and Divorce Court

with Judge Mablean Ephriam currently filming in Los Angeles, litigants may be

flown from one state to another for purposes of taping, and arbitration judgments

do not necessarily rely on State law in which the show is taped. The arbitration

agreement for Judge Joe Brown, for example, states that

...the Arbitrator is not required to decide the Claims under the laws of the State of California

or the laws of any other jurisdiction. In arriving at his Decision, the Arbitrator, in his sole

discretion, will be free to apply the laws of any jurisdiction as he interprets them, or he may