Justice Performed: Courtroom TV Shows and The Theaters of Popular Law by Sarah Kozinn (review)

Daytime judge reality shows are a remarkable phenomenon in the United States and around the world. They have proliferated such that in major media markets one can watch televised judge shows all day long, with by far the most popular show being Judge Judy. Judge Judy dominates daytime television ratings (both for syndicated and for live shows) and its star, Judy Sheindlin, earns about $47 million per year. What is going on with these shows, which, to this reviewer, are boring and distasteful? Why don’t viewers watch soap operas instead? After all, the acting, narratives, and production values of soap operas are vastly superior to the judge shows.

Judge shows are having substantial effects on our justice system. One small claims court judge told me that litigants now come into her court expecting her to make their case. When she tells them that it is up to them to prove their case, and she will not do it for them, they think she’s lazy. In addition, heavy consumers of judge shows have remarkably different beliefs about litigation; they assume that the judge, not the lawyers, asks the questions and that it is wholly appropriate for the judge to articulate views about the morals and character of the litigants before them (Podlas 2001).

Considering the number of viewers they draw each day, judge shows are remarkably understudied, and thus Sarah Kozinn’s book Justice Performed is a very welcome addition to the field of media and performance studies. Kozinn’s unique contribution to the literature is that she views the shows through the lens of performance theory, rather than the legal-istic perspective employed by most researchers. Kozinn looks at judge shows as a form of what Victor Turner termed “social drama,” involving personal crises and redressive action to repair the schism (78). She analyzes the casting, acting, set design, cinematography, rehearsal, scripting, and preparation of the studio audience, as well as the editing, subtitling, and other postproduction activities.

One particularly interesting element in Kozinn’s analysis is her division of judge shows into two quite different models. One is the compassionate model, in which the judges see themselves more as therapists than judges (111–42). The “case” being heard is used as a vehicle to delve into the personal histories and pathologies of the “litigants” and their relationships. The judge offers hugs, nurturing, and quick solutions to these relationship problems. Such shows offer a form of restorative justice rather than conventional judicial decisions based on law. Examples are Christina’s Court, Judge Hatchette, and Judge Penny. The second model is the harsh tough-love model embodied by Judge Judy and Judge Joe Brown and their many clones (143–72). As Kozinn puts it, “Compassionate judges model their courtrooms after the therapist’s office, and the tough judges treat their courtrooms as a sternly monitored classroom [...] They hector, yell at, shame, and insult litigants” (143). In these shows, the judges bully and ridicule the litigants and condemn their self-destructive behaviors. At the same time, the judges get an opportunity to voice their pet peeves, such as welfare dependency. To these judges, having a terrible childhood is no excuse for adult bad behavior. The second model is vastly more popular with viewers than the first.

Kozinn’s book does an excellent job of analyzing the content of judge shows, but the book is less successful in providing analysis of the audience. In particular, Kozinn fails to address the fundamental question of why judge reality shows are so successful in the market. I speculate that part of their appeal is that judge shows allow viewers to vicariously experience the bad fortune of litigants who are demographically similar to themselves—often working-class women of various ethnicities. These audiences appreciate the ability to select judge shows conducted by judges with the same ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation as...