It is that for an audience that runs well into the millions every week, it is blurring the line between justice and social bullying.
This reminds me of the article we read in our textbook. The Buzzfeed article about online bullying and outing people.
People like to see social hierarchies reinforced, and people who violate social norms "taught responsibility" or otherwise punished
I wonder if its because people project their insecurities on other people.
Professor Black argues that the legal system would be fairer if efforts were made to hide information about the parties' social status from judges and juries.
I see this working better than the current system, because people will be biased towards wealthier people.
Judge Judy is able to carry on the way she does because her litigants almost invariably have a multitude of low-status markers: they are unemployed, they have criminal records, they speak poorly. It would be a completely different show if the parties were wealthy. As things stand now, the lower a party's apparent status, the harsher Judge Judy is free to be.
So the author is showing that there is a bias against people in the lower class, its one of those things that never seem to change and its really sad.
Not surprisingly, customers in the store turned the hippies in far more often than the "straights," and with much more enthusiasm.
Why do people have this way of thinking? Why do people find them selves more comfortable turning someone in when their different from the conventional social norms.
The poor, the culturally marginal and social deviants of all types are more likely to attract bad legal outcomes -- to be arrested, to be convicted, to lose civil lawsuits
This makes me sad
It is far easier for a rich man to get a policeman to arrest a poor man in the street, for example, than the other way around.
I can agree with this statement.
what occurs in the legal system can be explained by the relative social status of the participants.
I think I will have to look into this more because its kind of confusing.
But the reason Judge Judy's show resonates so strongly is that she has an uncanny ability to act out justice-as-social-control in its rawest form.
I wonder if Judge Judy has an actual degree in criminal law, or its like Dr. Phil, who doesn't have a PhD in psychology but still has a show "solving peoples problems".
Few real-life judges refer to litigants, as Judge Judy does, as "you idiot," inform them bluntly "there is something wrong with you," or end a legal proceeding by telling one of the parties that it would be a bad idea for her to have children.
This seems unprofessional
legal sociologists
Who are the legal sociologists?
This summer, both the novelist Kurt Vonnegut and the Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen made semiserious suggestions that she should be considered to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court.
I did not expect people to take the suggestions seriously, I thought it was a joke.
Her books, with titles like "Don't Pee on My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining," and "Beauty Fades, Dumb Is Forever," have been best sellers
I noticed that I've never heard of Judge Judys books before, I wonder if they are a good read.
She got the young man to admit
I am assuming for the rest of the article it will use words like "she got" and "worthless piece of human" telling me that this article uses ethos to persuade the reader.
a worthless piece of humanity the son was
I see here that the author already has a bias and gives the reader what their opinion about the son is. Its harsh.