Shame, angry judges, and the social media effect.

Source: (2014) Catholic University Law Review. 65:589-623.

This Article addresses the intersection between judicial anger and attempts by
judicial sanctioning tribunals to correct the behavior with public sanctions.
Disciplinary tribunals tend to impose public sanctions as harsh discipline for a
judge’s egregiously hostile behavior or repeated displays of anger. This Article
challenges the notion that public discipline motivates a judge’s positive
behavioral changes. For some judges, particularly those whose wrongdoing
involves anger, this approach is counterproductive, as shame from the publicity
of wrongdoing can stigmatize the judge, exacerbating her anger, hostility, and
sense of isolation. Organizations involved in regulating judicial behavior9 and
legislatures involved in making laws regarding the authority of these
organizations should work toward a more deliberate philosophy of judicial
corrections. (excerpt)