Hunger bias affects judicial decision-making, as judges are less likely to grant probation when hungry. Other factors studied include fatigue, political preferences, financial interests, and social demographics. Judicial activism and restraint are also important considerations. Judges are expected to disqualify themselves in cases of personal bias or knowledge.
A study by Columbia University researchers found that judges are significantly less likely to grant probation when they are hungry, indicating that hunger bias plays an important role in judicial decision-making. In the study, prisoners had an almost 65% chance of being paroled at the start of a session, which dropped to almost 0% by the end of the session. After a break for food, her chances of being paroled returned to about 65 percent.
More information on court decisions:
Other commonly studied factors with respect to their effect on judicial decisions include fatigue, political preferences, financial interests, and social demographics such as race and gender.
The term “judicial activism” refers to judicial decisions based on the judge’s political or personal considerations. Judicial restraint is when a judge is expected to have limited himself from allowing personal biases to influence his decision.
In the United States, judges are expected to disqualify or retire from cases where they may have a personal bias or personal knowledge.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
