Research in the last few years has pointed to a high incidence of distress among judges, who are exposed to long-term high levels of stress due to high workloads, long working hours, increasing demands and expectations, and an unsupportive work environment, and thus to a higher risk of numerous consequences of stress on mental and physical health. Using a mixed research method, we wanted to examine the experience of judicial stress and the attitude towards support in the face of stress among Slovenian judges. We were interested in the expression, types and consequences of stress and their attitude towards psychological support, with an emphasis on the system of peer support. Additional attention was paid to judges who express greater psychological stress and distress. The qualitative part of the research involved 10 judges who shared their experiences with us through interviews. The quantitative part included an online questionnaire in which 170 judges from various legal areas, districts and levels of the judiciary participated. During the research, judges assessed their work on average as quite stressful, which is contributed by aspects of work such as workload, time pressure, handling traumatic cases, balancing work and private life, staff shortages, salary, and statistics and/or evaluations. Female judges in the family court area and judges from the Maribor District assess their work as the most stressful. Pressures and burdens often result in feelings of overload, fatigue, and decreased physical activity. Judges who assess their work as more stressful report more frequent consequences in the emotional, physical, and behavioral areas and more often express the need for psychological help, mainly in the form of a conversation with a psychologist. Judges are quite reluctant to use the peer support system. The research findings contribute to a better understanding of the judicial profession, their burdens, and their needs for psychological support, and provide guidelines for improving the system of support for judges in judicial practice.
|