Theme: A judge’s style may help determine the truth and prepare a decision, but too often, it distorts the truth and causes the judge to deliver an unfair decision.
Introduction: Motivation & the Law
Recently watching one of our favorite reality TV judges, whose name I won’t mention, something immediately caught my attention: the way she speaks to all individuals associated with the case. Yelling, insulting, mocking, berating—you’ll see the judge doing any of these things. In fact, I’ve seen any of these behaviors with many reality TV judges; this one’s behavior isn’t unique.
A picture of reality TV star Judge Joe Brown
Source: New York Daily News
Reality TV judges interact with their courtroom buddies in so many different ways, I can’t even begin to list them. In addition to the behaviors listed above, judges will casually chat with the litigant or defendant, as if they’re friends; some will use slang; and some will question a defendant’s credibility by saying something wholly irrelevant to the case. I mean, the list goes on…and on…and on.
Now, this is great for ratings; the audience loves, or should I say adores, it. However, what is the judge doing exactly? Does their style of speech help in determining the case’s outcome? In this blog entry, I will explore how the judge’s techniques change a party’s behavior, which thereby affects how the judge discovers the truth and prepares a decision. And although it frequently helps the judge’s goals, it does not always do so.
What Motivates Us?
Our friend B.F. Skinner (1938) states that an individual’s motivation can be controlled by the stimuli in his or her environment. His approach to understanding and characterizing behavior is known as, you guessed it, behaviorism. In other words, if an individual is presented with a stimulus, namely something that incites action, he or she will respond; if the individual is presented with that same stimulus again, he or she will respond in the same manner.
Therefore, if I bribe you to do your homework by giving you money, you will do your homework; if I bribe you again by giving you money, we should expect that you again will do your homework. The money is the stimulus, and the act of doing your homework is the response. Additionally, you discriminate if you will only do your homework again if money is given, and you generalize if you will do your homework again if other rewards, like a new phone, are given.
What I’ve described above is coined operant conditioning, and it is based on two things: what the stimulus is and how the stimulus interacts with the person. According to Skinner, the likelihood of repeated action can be organized into four causes: positive and negative reinforcement and positive and negative punishment. This chart sums it up neatly:
|
Stimulus interaction/Stimulus quality |
Given something… |
Taken away something… |
|
Rewarding (Reinforcer) |
Positive reinforcement — An individual receives a rewarding stimulus in order to encourage the behavior. |
Negative punishment — An individual has a rewarding stimulus taken away in order to discourage the behavior. |
|
Aversive (Punisher) |
Positive punishment — An individual receives an aversive stimulus in order to discourage the behavior. |
Negative reinforcement — An individual has an aversive stimulus taken away in order to encourage the behavior. |
How Do Judges Use Operant Conditioning?
Our reality TV judges have two goals when they approach the stand: reveal the truth and make a fair decision. They share those two goals with both parties; that’s OB in practice. When working to achieve those goals, our judges constantly use B.F. Skinner’s concept.
Determine the truth at all costs
Source: De Limburger
In this case, our young adult supposedly has 10 children, and the judge is trying to decide whether the litigant deserves the $411.17 she is suing for. The judge goes back and forth with the defendant, questioning whether he is being honest; roaring at him, “I’m speaking!” when he tries to interrupt her; and telling him clearly why he’s responsible for the money the litigant is suing for.
We’d call what the judge is doing “positive punishment”: She is constantly giving something bad to the defendant, namely embarrassing and insulting him, in addition to clarifying anything unclear to him in a mocking, yet biting, manner. She does this in order to get him to tell the truth and quiet down whenever he interrupts.
In another case, this judge casually chats with the divorced couple in order to get the woman to say how and why she left her husband. This should shed light on what happened to the damaged car and assist the judge in revealing the truth and making a decision. The judge gestures her hands frequently and speaks colloquially, even going so far as to say “This man is a wonderful man” and “If I found you a brotha.” The judge wants to make both the plaintiff and defendant feel comfortable, as if talking to a friend. We see the judge rely on positive reinforcement in order for both sides to tell the truth.
But Is This Always Good?
Is it all that important to take note of any of this? This is all interesting, but does it really matter to anyone what techniques the judge uses? And I’ll respond with a resounding “Yes.” It’s crucial. It indicates to us whether the judges are actually fair arbiters.
When a judge calls the defendant a “liar,” claims that what the defendant is arguing is “bologna,” speaks to the litigant and defendant in a comfortable manner, etc., he or she alters how they behave throughout the case. Being called a liar? Positive punishment: She is giving the defendant a stimulus that will prevent him or her from lying again.
At times, this is great: Behavior is altered; lying ceases. Wonderful! Makes achieving said goals easier. But what about cases where the defendant is not lying or cases where the litigant states evidence wholly irrelevant to the case? Let’s look at this case.
The plaintiff is suing the defendant for $275 in unpaid loans and tries to reduce her credibility by stating she is promiscuous. The plaintiff even goes so far as to state she has slept with at least 100 men, to which the defendant replies that the plaintiff is only bringing up her promiscuity because he wants to sleep with her.
The judge eventually calls the defendant’s sister to verify the plaintiff’s argument…Am I missing something? The plaintiff is suing for money. This is not a bar, nor is it a club. The judge ultimately yells at the defendant—positive punishment—and she begins perspiring and eventually acknowledges that she did, in fact, borrow $285 and only paid back $10.
When I think of this case, I immediately think of persuasive speeches. Often in persuasion, the speaker uses pathos and/or ethos to get the audience to either accept his or her viewpoint or call them to action. This, however, is not, I repeat, not a call to action; this is court. We have our two clearly-defined goals, and arriving at those goals must be fair and efficient. Expose the truth and deliver a judgment. Doesn’t seem like this judge achieved either.
Ways in which persuasive speeches, not court cases, are structured
Source: Weebly
To add misery to insult, judges typically use their bully pulpit to degrade either party when they make a mistake. Both parties already enter the court under stress, and with the judge treating them like dirt, it becomes likely that the truth will be distorted. And did I mention that both parties are being watched by millions of viewers, which the judge repeats throughout the case?
A constant dose of positive punishment makes it difficult for the defendant to truly defend him- or herself. Operant conditioning, a sense of evaluation apprehension, and the spotlight effect lead to either party quieting or clamming up, rendering it impossible for the judge to reveal the real truth—not what the judge claims as true. And of course, the judge constantly tells you that you may only speak when the judge isn’t.
Shut your mouth!
Source: Joyce Meyer Ministries
There Is Still One Other Factor
We also need to review how effectively our judges handled the lawsuits through the lens of organizational justice. Organizational justice refers to the degree to which the litigant and defendant perceive the case as being handled fairly (Rupp & Thornton, 2015). It’s important to note whether the litigant or defendant responds to how the judge interacts with him or her, in addition to how the judge interacts with one party differently. This brings up a specific type of justice: interactional justice.
Interactional justice refers to the “degree to which each party [perceives that he or she] is treated with dignity, politeness, and respect when executing procedures and determining outcomes” (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Interactional justice is composed of two subtypes: interpersonal and informational justice.
Interpersonal justice refers to how the judge interacts with either party; informational justice refers to the degree to which either party receives all necessary information regarding how procedures are carried out and how certain outcomes are reached. We invoke interpersonal justice when talking about whether the judge speaks kindly to either party and invoke informational justice when talking about whether the judge gives enough information about how an outcome is reached.
I thought about interactional justice when I saw this case. The defendant is being sued for vandalism, to which she admits. The judge and the defendant eventually get into a tiff, and the defendant ultimately states she would never give the judge CPR. Additionally, the litigant and defendant yell at one another by the end of the case.
Interpersonal justice is crucial here because one party left court feeling that the case was handled unfairly and that she was treated differently. That’s why we have the defendant yelling at the judge and showing aggression toward the litigant. This is pretty frequent actually. (See here, here, and here.) Now, I’ll add one more goal to our list: that a judge is responsible for having both parties leave court perceiving the outcome was fair.
In all these cases, which I count four in total, we realize these judges have made a crucial error. In our case where the litigant sues for vandalism, I will admit that we don’t know how the litigant was treated based off the video. However, we do know how the defendant felt: poorly, unfairly, unreasonably. Perhaps the defendant’s perception of justice is skewed, but regardless of her perceptions, the judge has no reason to mock her, call her an idiot, and state that she will never get a job in EMS. We can understand why, then, the defendant said she would never give the judge CPR: After having been yelled at and embarrassed on live television, she felt infuriated and motivated to return the favor. Finally, let me ask: Does this really help the judge get to the truth and make a fair decision? Doubtfully.
Conclusion: The Moral of the Story
Is any of this fair? No, of course it isn’t. In fact, I’d say this isn’t a reasonable approach to handle any type of lawsuit. But what makes this different than any other lawsuit? It’s live television: All individuals involved in the case, namely the litigants, defendants, and witnesses get money for participating: They get an appearance fee; are paid for their flight, hotel, and meals; and have all expenses related to the case covered. So that leaves me, and hopefully you as well, with this question: Does it really matter? Who cares…right?
We need to assess if this is actually fair!
Source: PinsDaddy
Wait! Not so fast! I’m telling you that it’s Wrong. Wrong! These judges make a fool of the due administration of law. Call me self-righteous, but I believe that reality TV judges have a unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity: They have millions of viewers watching all types of lawsuits, with these cases being completely true and the judges being actual and authentic judges, and they’re blowing it. They get to teach daily life Americans about the court, justice, and the law. Most Americans don’t have the resources and time to learn the intricacies of the law, nor to learn it in a way that’s straightforward, direct, and empty of jargon. These judges are blowing it.
However, not only are the judges blowing it; they are selling themselves out for the sake of getting rich. If we base our definitions of “the pursuit of happiness” and the American Dream on the lives of our reality TV judges, then perhaps that lifestyle is not for me.
A judge has the responsibility to accomplish three goals: determine the truth, make a fair decision, and have both parties leave the courtroom perceiving the decision as fair and just. You may ask me, “Did the judge successfully do his or her job?” and I will tell you, “Most of the time is not enough.”
Published: 07/07/17, 11:06
Last Revised: 08/25/17, 22:41
———
Note
Statements made about other people or organizations in this blog post are expressly opinion, and all of them are entirely substantiated by that person’s or organization’s actions or words. No opinion should be misinterpreted as a true representation of him/her or it; instead, it must be interpreted as evidence behind the blog post’s theme.
Think Organizationally 