Confidentiality and the Juvenile and Family Courts

Court proceedings and court records are traditionally open to the public. The courts are public institutions, and openness serves a number of important purposes including protection of the free discussion of governmental affairs and the enhancement of the quality and integrity of the fact finding process. But court proceedings also address family matters including adoptions, juvenile delinquency, child protection, and domestic relations cases. These types of cases often involve personal issues, and many family members would prefer that they remain private. In most states, many of these proceedings have been closed to the public. Strong policy reasons support both openness of family court proceedings and privacy considerations for family members, particularly children. This article addresses confidentiality in the context of juvenile and family court proceedings. It takes the position that the tension between these conflicting policies can be reduced if most family court proceedings are presumptively open, but judges are given the authority to place conditions on the information that can be revealed by observers outside the courtroom. Additionally, the article asserts that if the courts and the media take steps to change their practices and their relationship with one another, both the public interest and the confidentiality interest of the parties can be better served.     

BYSTANDER REPORTING OF A CRIME:

A field experiment was conducted to study bystander reporting of a crime. The study investigated two primary dimensions upon which most programs which encourage reporting, namely, monetary reward and anonymity. Conditions of anonymity and reward were unobtrusively varied during a bogus interview conducted with shoppers before they entered a supermarket. Neither of these variables affected the reporting of a staged shoplifting. However, preincident behavioral intention to report was significantly correlated with reporting behavior. The findings are discussed with respect to research on intrinsic motivation and deindividuation.     

Reclaiming Futures: A Model for Judicial Leadership in Community Responses to Juvenile Substance Abuse

Juvenile courts across the country have become the leading service delivery system for youths with substance abuse problems, not by choice, but by necessity. At 10 communities around the nation, judges and project staff are in their fifth year of pioneering changes to the way the juvenile justice system helps teens in trouble with drugs, alcohol, and crime. These judges are part of Reclaiming Futures, an initiative of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and they are working with local leaders to re‐invent the way law enforcement, courts, probation, detention facilities, treatment providers, families, schools, and the community work together to help troubled youths succeed. Together, they have written a guide for judges, court administrators, government entities, community leaders, and interested citizens to share the knowledge and experience they have gained from the nationwide Reclaiming Futures initiative. Their goal is to encourage and motivate others to launch similar projects in their communities, and to provide a blueprint for judges and others striving to undertake this level of collaboration.     

Vicarious Trauma in Judges: The Personal Challenge of Dispensing Justice

Symptoms of vicarious trauma, coping strategies, and prevention suggestions were investigated with 105 judges. Participants completed a self‐report measure developed for this study. The majority of judges (63%) reported one or more symptoms that they identified as work‐related vicarious trauma experiences. Female judges reported more symptoms, as did judges with seven or more years of experience. In addition, female judges were more likely to report internalizing difficulties, while judges with more experience reported higher levels of externalizing/hostility symptoms. Coping and prevention strategies were multi‐domain (i.e., personal, professional, and societal) and underscored the need for greater awareness and support for judges.