The wit of Judge Rinder: judges, humour and popular culture

Judge Rinder is a British reality TV court show. It has much in common with the US archetype Judge Judy. But there are differences. One is Judge Rinder’s humour, and more specifically his wit. Using a research database of Judge Rinder cases. The article examines the nature and effects of humour in this courtroom setting. It explores the role of the judge, the form the humour takes and the interactions and social relations it generates. A distinctive feature of the analysis is consideration of the impact of the audio-visual technologies, and the techniques and conventions developed around them, upon the interactions and social relations the onscreen humour generates with viewers. While the camera aligns the screen audience with the judge and the laughter track infects the audience with emotion the judge generates, the paper cautions against assuming that all viewers have the same emotional experience. Judge Rinder es un reality show judicial británico. Tiene mucho en común con el arquetipo de Judge Judy, de EEUU; pero hay diferencias. Una consiste en el humor del juez Rinder, y, más en concreto, en su ingenio. Utilizando una base de datos de investigación de los casos de Judge Rinder, el artículo analiza la naturaleza y los efectos del humor en ese escenario judicial. Explora el rol del juez, la forma que adquiere el humor y las interacciones y relaciones sociales que éste genera. Una característica distintiva del análisis es la consideración del impacto de las tecnologías audiovisuales, y de las técnicas y convenciones desarrolladas alrededor de aquéllas, sobre las interacciones y las relaciones sociales que el humor televisivo genera en los espectadores. Mientras la cámara alinea a la audiencia con el juez y la risa contagia a la audiencia la emoción generada por el juez, el artículo advierte contra la deducción de que todos los espectadores experimentan una misma emoción.

The Future of Cameras in the Courts: Florida Sunshine of Judge Judy

This paper explains why electronic broadcasting devices, including both video and audio, should be standard equipment in any courtroom given that newspaper readership is declining sharply and newspapers are cutting staff. The public now looks to so-called reality courts such as Judge Judy for how the legal system operates. It begins with an introduction discussing what many consider the trial that quashed momentum on broadcasting court proceedings: the O.J. Simpson trial. The article then considers a brief legal history of cameras in the courts, recent legislation on the topic, and arguments against cameras in the courts, including why those arguments fail. It concludes with the rationales for why broadcasting court proceedings is important to the public interest.