Are judicial rulings based solely on laws and facts? Legal formalism holds that judges apply legal reasons to the facts of a case in a rational, mechanical, and deliberative manner. In contrast, legal realists argue that the rational application of legal reasons does not sufficiently explain the decisions of judges and that psychological, political, and social factors influence judicial rulings. We test the common caricature of realism that justice is âwhat the judge ate for breakfastâ in sequential parole decisions made by experienced judges. We record the judgesâ two daily food breaks, which result in segmenting the deliberations of the day into three distinct âdecision sessions.â We find that the percentage of favorable rulings drops gradually from â65% to nearly zero within each decision session and returns abruptly to â65% after a break. Our findings suggest that judicial rulings can be swayed by extraneous variables that should have no bearing on legal decisions.
Source: “Extraneous factors in judicial decisions” from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the blog bakadesuyo.
Title | Do hungry judges give harsher sentences? |
---|---|
Author | Eric Barker |
Date | April 12, 2011 7:10 PM UTC (12 years ago) |
Blog | bakadesuyo |
Archive Link |
https://theredarchive.com/blog/bakadesuyo/do-hungry-judges-give-harsher-sentences.15966 https://theredarchive.com/blog/15966 |
Original Link | https://www.bakadesuyo.com/2011/04/do-hungry-judges-give-harsher-sentences/ |
© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter