The Power of Compassion: A Judicial Reflection on Wellbeing and the Court
By Hon. Jamey Hueston and Hon. Pauline Spencer
Many individuals engaged in court processes neither want to be there, nor wish to face orders made by a stranger who can seriously impact their lives.
On the other side of the bench judicial officers’ daily lists often consist of distressing subject matter. They are faced with people who are struggling with a myriad of emotional, mental, and physical issues and who may lack access to community supports to address these issues. In addition, judicial officers often work in high-volume environments and judicial officers deal with all these challenges in the ‘fish-bowl’ of open court where everything they say and do is scrutinised.
It is therefore not surprising that judicial officers can experience emotional and physical stress, vicarious trauma and judicial burnout, which in turn can exact a toll on their health and their relationships. Judicial officers are not immune to this daily barrage,[1] and are in need of protective skills.
With this depressing portrait, why would judicial officers expose themselves to this gruelling diet? What motivates them to rise each morning to yet another day? How do some judicial officers not only remain motivated but continue to find meaning and purpose after many years in the role?
The answer lies in the power of compassion.
Compassion
Compassion is sympathy with another’s distress combined with a desire to do something about it. Empathy on the other hand, allows the hearer to experience another’s feelings, to share their emotional state, but does not arouse efforts to reduce suffering. Neurologically, compassion activates brain chemistry related to feelings of warmth, concern, and calm.[2] and as such has been said to be ‘neurologically rejuvenating’.[3] In contrast, empathy alone can lead to empathic distress, observed in increased activation in brain areas involved in the processing of threat or pain and generate burnout.[4]
Compassion has been seen as a vital quality for judicial officers[5] and can sit comfortably alongside a judicial officer’s overall duty without compromising impartiality.[6]
In their recent article “The Power of Compassion: a judicial reflection on wellbeing and the court” the authors, both experienced judicial officers in specialist courts – like drug courts and mental health courts – discuss how they have seen firsthand how the compassionate practices utilised in these courts contribute to more effective court interventions.
They also discuss how compassionate practices can be exported to any court setting including traditional/mainstream court lists and in both criminal and non-criminal matters.[7] The authors discuss how judicial officers can demonstrate compassion by applying some or all of three pillars of compassionate practice as is appropriate: (1) procedural fairness; (2) judicial engagement and (3) other therapeutic jurisprudence approaches and court programs.
Judiciary can be supported in developing their compassionate court craft through compassion training. A judicial officer utilising compassionate approaches within, of course, the boundaries of judicial office, law and due process, can positively transform the quality and impact of interactions with court users and their own experience on life on the bench.
For the full article (link here)
This article is part of a special edition on the subject of judicial and lawyer wellbeing and stress in the Psychiatry, Psychology and the Law Journal (link here)
Authors Bios
Jamey Hueston is the founding judge and administrator of the Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court for over 20 years. She hosted hundreds of national and international visiting judges and others seeking to observe its operations and adapt them to their respective jurisdictions. She also founded and chaired the Maryland Office of Problem-Solving Courts, one of the first statewide drug-court-oversight offices in the country and is a pioneer founder of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. Judge Hueston lectures and consults throughout the U.S. and internationally regarding court justice innovation and compassionate jurisprudence.
Pauline Spencer was appointed as a Magistrate in Victoria in 2006. She currently sits at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, Victoria, Australia and is the Head of Division, Specialist Courts & Programs providing judicial leadership across the court’s therapeutic justice programs in both mainstream court and Specialist Courts. Prior to her appointment Magistrate Spencer worked as a lawyer in private practice, as the Principal Legal Officer for the Fitzroy Legal Service and as Executive Officer of the Federation of Community Legal Centres the peak body for over 50 community legal centres in Victoria. Magistrate Spencer has an interest in therapeutic jurisprudence and how the court can improve links with the community it serves. Magistrate Spencer is on the Board of the International Society for Therapeutic Jurisprudence (intltj.com).
[1] Carly Schrever, Carol Hulbert and Tania Sourdin, ‘The Psychological Impact of Judicial Work: Australia’s First Empirical Research Measuring Judicial Stress and Wellbeing’ (2019) 28 Journal of Judicial Administration 141.
[2] ibid 278.
[3] Trisha Dowling, ‘Compassion does not fatigue!’ (2018) (59(7) Canadian Veterinary Journal 749.
[4] Laura W. McCray and others, ‘Resident physician burnout: Is there hope?’ (2008) 40(9) Family Medicine 626; Trisha Dowling, ‘Compassion does not fatigue!’ (2018) (59(7) Canadian Veterinary Journal 749.
[5] Michael King, ‘Compassion and the Courts: The Evolution of an Institution’ in Michelle Brenner (ed) Conversations on Compassion (CreateSpace 2015), 218-9.
[6] The Honourable Chief Justice Murray Gleeson AC, Judicial Legitimacy, Speech delivered to the Australian Bar Association conference, New York, 2 July 2000.
[7] Hueston and Burke (n 12).