Tag: mental health

Indiana courts find interesting new applications for technology

The beginning of each calendar year is the prime time for State of the Judiciary addresses, an opportunity for each state’s Chief Justice to personally address legislators, request needed resources, and champion the court system’s accomplishments.

This year, Indiana Chief Justice Loretta Rush highlighted some fascinating technological developments in her court system. One involved a pilot project that uses AI to generate transcripts in mental health commitment cases. Transcripts are now available in minutes rather than months. This is critical because many commitment decisions are appealed, and in the ordinary case transcripts take so long to generate that the appeal cannot be heard until the period of commitment has passed, effectively denying a party the right of appeal. The new technology expedites the entire process and adds a meaningful appeal option in these difficult cases.

The second development is the creation of an integrated system for sharing data on the statewide jail population. Indiana currently has 20 different jail management software systems, which were not necessarily able to talk to each other. (This sounds incredible, but given the long history of local courts being tied to their county systems rather a statewide court management system, it’s still not all that surprising.) The new system will allow the sharing of critical information, including fingerprint data.

The Indiana legislature will have to fully fund the jail software to the tune of $3 million, and has not committed to it yet. But the developments are interesting and noteworthy, and seemingly highly beneficial for both court administration and public safety.

ABA calls for mental health resources for the judiciary

At its annual meeting this week, the American Bar Association passed a resolution recognizing the many mental health challenges faced by state and federal judges, including exposure to traumatic evidence in the courtroom and increased threats against judges at their homes and workplaces.

The JD Journal reports:

The resolution sheds light on the psychological toll these challenging circumstances take on those within the judiciary and urges national court leaders to develop specialized training and processes. The goal is to provide judges, their support staff, and their families with access to professional, confidential treatment, working in tandem with court security teams.

The catalyst for this resolution has been the unsettling surge in threats and violent incidents targeting judges. Among the distressing incidents mentioned is the arrest of an armed individual outside the residence of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh last year. The assailant was later charged with attempted assassination. Additionally, the tragic 2020 murder of the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, shot by a disgruntled litigant at her New Jersey home, underscores the gravity of the situation.

…

The National Conference of State Trial Judges Chair, Delaware Superior Court Judge Vivian Medinilla, submitted the resolution’s report. The document emphasizes the necessity of shifting attention beyond judges’ well-being and towards the broader group affected by traumatic events – including judges’ staff and their families.

In an arena where exposure to distressing scenarios is all too common, the report argues that these individuals are also at risk of experiencing trauma, whether stemming from explicit threats or the very nature of court proceedings. From complex sentencing hearings to divorce cases, abuse situations, and matters involving sexual crimes, the judicial staff’s exposure to distressing scenarios is extensive.

Yes.

COVID complicates access to New York’s mental health courts

The New York Daily News has a very interesting feature on the Manhattan’s specialized mental health court, and the special challenges facing those who would like to use it during this pandemic-stricken era.

Only a handful of cases ever make it to Manhattan Mental Health Court, according to data provided by the district attorney — and that was before COVID-19 ground the city to a halt. On Friday, after tentatively opening some courtrooms for trials and hearings over the summer, the Office of Court Administration once again shut down most in-person proceedings, citing a recent surge in the virus.

Even pre-COVID, the mental health court moved at a plodding pace. In 2018, the office received 74 requests for referral. Of those, prosecutors consented to refer 43 cases — about 58% — and declined to refer the rest. In 2019, the office got 136 requests. They consented to 46 cases — about 34% — and declined to refer the remaining 90.

The office referred three cases this year before the court shutdown in mid-March because of the coronavirus pandemic. Twelve cases were not referred to mental health court, though two of those were referred to another diversion court. Thirty-five are pending.

The whole story is worth the read, especially for those interested in how specialized state courts can make a difference in people’s lives — if they are accessible.

More evidence of the emotional strain of judging

I have previously blogged about the mental health challenges that judges face. Daily confrontations with purveyors of extreme violence, sexual abuse, child abuse, and various other forms of reprehensible human behavior unquestionably take their toll. Having to make difficult decisions that directly impact the lives of fellow citizens creates an additional, and significant, layer of stress. High-profile cases, and the unwanted media and political attention that accompany them, also contribute. Judges can also face stresses that are not unique to the judicial workplace, such as long hours, heavy workloads, and insufficient resources.

A new study from the American Bar Association drives the point home. It found that nationwide, the top ten sources of judicial stress were, in order:

  • Importance/impact of decisions
  • Heavy docket of cases
  • Unprepared attorneys
  • Self-represented litigants
  • Same parties repeatedly, but not addressing underlying issues
  • Public ignorance of courts
  • Long hours of work without break
  • Hearing contentious family-law issues
  • Isolation in judicial service
  • Insufficient support staff

The study also revealed that a little over 2% of judges have contemplated suicide.

Mental health awareness is growing in the American workplace, including the courthouse. It’s a welcome development.

Conference notes that legal professionals are at high risk for mental health issues

I have chronicled several recent stories discussing the mental health issues faced by lawyers and judges. It is no secret that the practice of law can be a stressful job, featuring (as it does) time pressure, a sometimes-unhealthy desire for excellence at all costs, and fact patterns that often reveal humanity at its worst.

There are resources for lawyers and judges to help with some of the consequences of these pressures–be they substance abuse, anxiety, depression, or countless other mental health concerns. And increasingly, those who have experienced these conditions are finding the courage to speak about it publicly. The Daily Business Review has a good story on a recent conference that brought these issues out into the open.

Like first responders, medical professionals, and social workers, lawyers and judges often find themselves on the front lines of society’s most difficult and troubling moments. There is no shame in seeking help to relieve some of the mental burden that they carry home from those encounters.

Australian judge warns that overworked judges may contemplate suicide

In a remarkably stark assessment, New South Wales District Judge Robyn Tupman warned that docket pressure on Australia’s courts might drive some of her judicial colleagues to suicide.

Citing two recent, high-profile cases of Australian judges taking their own lives, Judge Tupman argued that a lack of resources in the courts put pressure on judges–especially newer judges–to keep up with rapidly expanding dockets. This is particularly concerning, Judge Tupman said, when docket pressure forces judges to make highly sensitive decisions under extreme time pressure. By way of example, she noted that she was scheduled to sentence seven different offenders on the day of her remarks, some of which were bound to draw significant public attention. The clear implication of her remarks was that pressure to get the sentence right was exacerbated by not having enough to time to properly consider it.

Judge Tupman described the her current caseload as “ridiculous, absurd and offensive to the people of NSW.”

Her comments follow other recent statements of concern about judicial mental health in Australia. Local bar leaders and NSW Attorney General Mark Speakman have committed to review the judge’s concerns.

 

On the mental health strains associated with judging

Years ago, in practice, I was involved in a series of cases involving allegations that a certain drug had caused infertility in women. I had to depose a number of plaintiffs who had been unable to bear children, and ask them intensely personal questions about their physical and sexual health in order to better ascertain the strength of their claims. I did my very best to handle the situation like a professional, but often the deponents would (understandably) become highly emotional during questioning. For me, an unmarried twenty-something just a few years out of law school, it was an awkward experience. Their reactions would stick with me when I went home at night.

From time to time I would ask my friends who worked as attorneys in the criminal justice system–who spent their days knee-deep in murders, sexual assaults, and various other horrible acts–how they could block those images away when they went home at night. It wasn’t easy at all, they admitted, but somehow they managed. One had to find a way to compartmentalize work and home, for one’s own mental health. And often those images and stories did haunt them at home, as much as in the workplace.

A lengthy story out of Australia keenly illustrates that judges are equally susceptible to these challenges. Six judges in Victoria talked to the Sydney Morning Herald about judicial mental health, including the judges’ environment, coping mechanisms, and (occasionally tragic) responses. As one judge put it:

“It’s been hidden, unspoken, unacknowledged and surrounded by taboo and shame for a long time,” she says. “There’s this sort of almost irreconcilable conflict between being an impartial decision-maker and being a human being who responds in a human way to what we’re doing.

“Because we’ve got to be tough [and] impartial, there’s been a concern about ‘Are you not intellectually rational enough to do the job, or are you too weak as a person if you’re responding on a personal level to other people’s trauma?’ So [there’s] the shame of saying, ‘I’m struggling, I’m finding this hard … I’m finding it hard to reconcile the human part of me with my impassive, impartial demeanour.'”

An important read for anyone involved in the administration of justice.