An Assessment of Judges’ Self‐Reported Experiences of Secondary Traumatic Stress

Abstract

Many judges experience occupation‐specific stress, such as secondary traumatic stress (STS), burnout, compassion fatigue, and vicarious traumatization. A content analysis of 762 judges’ open‐ended responses to a survey asking whether they had suffered from STS revealed that judges moderately experienced most types of stress. Some case types (e.g., family court) and some job aspects (e.g., gruesome evidence) were particularly stressful. Judges reported both positive (e.g., social support) and negative (e.g., distractions) coping mechanisms. Interventions should be tailored to judges’ characteristics, (e.g., gender), job (e.g., family court), beliefs (e.g., that STS does not exist), and level of distress.

In Their Own Words: The Impact of Indirect Trauma Exposure on Judges Presiding Over Cases Involving Minors Involved in Sex Trafficking

“…This observation differs from another qualitative study examining STS in a broader population of judges attending a national judicial college. In this study, Edwards & Miller (2019) note that while 45% of judges reported symptoms of vicarious trauma during qualitative interviews, there was evidence of a few judges who denied the existence of secondary traumatic stress altogether, referring to it as "absurd" and evidence of "government scammers" or "extraordinarily weak minds" (p.14). It is possible that the juvenile and family court judges dealing with sex trafficking of minor cases may have different levels of understanding about trauma than those who preside over other more diverse courts, cases and populations.…”

“…The judicial strategies spontaneously offered during these interviews (e.g., exercise, utilizing social support, caseload mix, task-focused coping) are consistent with these practices that promote health and wellbeing (Osofsky, Putman, Lederman, 2008). Post-adjudication briefings would allow for processing of experiences with peers and/or professionals may provide a pathway toward active coping, but needs empirical testing to determine its efficacy (Edwards & Miller, 2019). Training in best practices for addressing the needs of children and youth exploited by commercial sex is indicated as there is evidence in the literature that receiving competency training is associated with lower levels of secondary traumatic stress (Ludick & Figley, 2017).…”

Trauma-informed forensic mental health assessment: Practical implications, ethical tensions, and alignment with therapeutic jurisprudence principles.

“…As described by Remen (1996), “the expectation that we can be immersed in suffering and loss daily and not be touched by it is as unrealistic as expecting to be able to walk through water without getting wet” (p.52). Although a search of the literature revealed little on the impact of trauma and vicarious trauma on FMHEs, there is substantial research about vicarious trauma among mental health professionals (Bonach & Heckert, 2012) and legal professionals (Edwards & Miller, 2019; James, 2020; Leclerc et al, 2020), concluding that both groups experienced high rates of vicarious trauma. Referring to legal professionals, James (2020) addressed how ongoing stigma leads to “psychological dishonesty” and the denial of emotional difficulties.…”

Judicial work and traumatic stress: Vilification, threats, and secondary trauma on the bench.

“…We define trauma as an “emotional response to a terrible event like an accident, rape or natural disaster” (American Psychological Association, 2020) typically including intrusive symptoms, avoidance symptoms, negative alterations to cognitions, and significant alterations in arousal and reactivity (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). “Secondary” or “vicarious” trauma, with similar symptoms, can occur when a person witnesses or is aware of terrible events even if they are not personally threatened with physical harm (Cieslak et al, 2013; Edwards & Miller, 2019). High levels of stress are implicated in various physiological conditions as well as producing disruptions in memory, concentration, and decision-making (Yaribeygi et al, 2017).…”