Snap!: The People’s Court set the bar back in the 1980s. But it wasn’t until the mid- to late-1990s that the small claims courtroom genre of syndicated programming really took off. Judge Judy and Judge Joe Brown are two of the most popular entries in this category, which has included about two dozen shows in the last ten years. Viewers can look to these shows for an entertaining vicarious courtroom experience. Ratings for Judge Judy continue to be stellar and Her Honor is under a multi-million dollar contract. A variety of personalities take to the bench, providing a court show for almost any audience.
Oh, Snap!: Syndicated courtroom shows are among television’s sleazier entries, ranking just above Maury’s paternity tests and Cheaters‘ own special brand of exploitation of human pain. Over the years, courtroom behavior (among litigants and jurists alike) has become cartoonish and ridiculous. What is the world coming to when the bizarre judge in the Anna Nicole Smith paternity case is shopping around L.A. to find a TV home for his antics? Television has the ability to entertain and inform, and that’s true of court shows as well. But the genre’s tendency to pander to a baser element is perhaps its most glaring shortcoming.
Judgment: Not all court shows are created equal. For every no-nonsense, ‘take responsibility’ message from Judges Judy and Hatchett, there’s an embarrassing public divorce on Divorce Court or a silly dispute settled in an unbelievable way on Eye for an Eye. The latest incarnation of The People’s Court is sort of a middle ground and an example of why it is difficult and generally unwise to judge a group by its weakest member. Judge Marilyn Milian, after all, is not responsible for what happens on Judge Mathis. And these shows do actually ease a small part of the burden on our legal system while hopefully deterring home viewers from frivolous legal claims. As they are entertaining, informative, and (at least theoretically) helpful to society, we find in favor of courtroom TV shows.



