In writing about the Turner-Crawford business, I suggested that, surely, someone must have seen some warning signs. I found it difficult to believe that an experienced, respected judge would just wake up suddenly one morning and decide it was a good idea to let a law clerk (now an ex-law clerk, though still an unopposed judicial candidate) hear cases in her stead.
In the course of ruminating about the specific situation, I asked some general, rhetorical questions, like, if it was you who'd wound up, for whatever reason, in a bad place, wouldn't you want someone to offer help? Wouldn't you want someone to warn your supervisors before you harmed yourself or your livelihood? Therefore, wouldn't you, shouldn't you, want to offer help if you saw a judge---or any colleague---drifting into peril?
But I couldn't offer concrete suggestions about how to help.
A comment to a post from Ira Helfgot reminded me that there are people who are available to us, who can offer concrete suggestions. I reached out to Robin Belleau, the Executive Director of the Lawyers Assistance Program, who enlisted the assistance of Chelsy A. Castro, LAP Clinical Case and Program Manager. It is Ms. Castro who supplies the post that follows below.
Please note: Ms. Castro is writing generally and not about any specific person or situation. To help make sure that's entirely understood, I've put these prefatory remarks in a separate post.
22 hours ago
Posts
9 comments:
Homer Simpson: "Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen." Jack, your suggestions that there may have been "issues" involved in this situation overlooks a very important fact, there were two people involved. Is there a suggestion that one forced the other at gunpoint to take over the call/let me handle the call? Your suggestion of issues is very kind, but two people did a very stupid thing. Unless there was some kind of mass hysteria affecting Markham this remains a stupid thing on both their parts.People can do dumb things regardless of their background. The fact remains, what the hell were they thinking when they thought this was a good idea.For the integrity of the judicial system in Cook County neither should be on the bench.
Jack, I do not see why from the very get-go that you have had the need to spin the Turner-Crawford story into a mental health dialogue. People sometimes commit incredibly stupid acts or have incredible lapses of judgement due to factors not related to their sanity. History is ripe with examples of brilliant generals who were defeated on the battlefield not because of a stronger opponent, but rather their own poor judgement. Many times it was related to their own arrogance, self-importance, entitlement, superiority, or vanity.
In defense of Jack.... He is probably just hearing the same things that I've heard from people in Markham -- that one of the people involved has been having some mental issues and the other person just didn't know any better.
@Anon 9/1 8:30 and 10:38 p.m. -- This being the Internet and all, I suppose this may be a heretical suggestion, but don't you think it's possible that we both have a point here? You are correct when you point out that, as my mother used to say, it takes two to tango. There is no suggestion that I've heard that Crawford was in any way forced to don Judge Turner's robe.
You are also correct to say that this was a stupid incident---for so many reasons---and I even agree with your implication that, if either or both had 'issues,' it will not entirely excuse their conduct or wholly negate their ultimate culpability (Crawford's already lost her job; Turner has been removed from her call; other consequences are sure to follow for both of them).
I will also admit that sometimes people are just plain dumb, or evil, and therefore sometimes do dumb or evil things.
But I am inclined to believe that, ordinarily, smart, accomplished people shouldn't do dumb things because they are, by definition, not dumb. That's where I think we disagree. When smart people do dumb things, don't you think that something else might be in play?
Yes, I'm 'spinning' this as a mental health issue. No, I have no inside information about whether either participant in this sorry saga did or did not have "issues." That's what investigations are for.
But I thought an event like this provided an opportunity to remind ourselves to look out for each other, to identify when someone really does have 'issues,' and what to do when we think we see a problem. You think different? OK, you can spin it any way you want on your blog.
WHY HAVE YOU NOT WRITTEN ABOUT SANDRA RAMOS CANDIDACY FOR CHIEF JUDGE?
http://chronicleillinois.com/news/cook-county-news/cook-co-chief-judge-faces-election-challenges-6th-term/
WE KNOW THAT YOU ARE NOT PREJUDICED LIKE BOTH THE SUN-TIMES AND TRIBUNE WHO ARE ON THE RECORD THAT THEY ARE ANTI-HISPANIC BUT I STILL EXPECT BETTER. I FORGIVE YOU THIS TIME BECAUSE UNLIKE SUN-TIMES AND TRIBUNE YOU GIVE LATINOS AND LATINAS A FAIR SHAKE 97% OF THE TIME
How disappointing. Although Jack Leyhane looks nothing like Bill O'Reilly (Jack is much better looking but Bill has more expensive looking suits) I was under the impression that FWIW, like the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News was a "no spin zone".
Mike Forti appointed to Liu vacancy in 8.
@Anon 9/2 10:40 a.m. -- Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I've done an explanatory, if not exculpatory, post....
@Anon 9/2 8:46 p.m. -- I use "spin" as a shorthand way of saying exercise of editorial privilege... not making as a synonym for making stuff up.
@EKT -- Yeah, I know. I would have gotten to it last evening but the grandkids were over....
Did the prosecutor remain silent when Crawford took the bench and Turner stepped removed her robe?
Post a Comment