A study by researchers from Columbia University found that judges are significantly less likely to grant parole when they are hungry, indicating that hunger bias plays a large role in judicial decision-making. In the study, prisoners had almost a 65 percent chance of being paroled at the beginning of a session, which dropped to almost 0 percent by the end of the session. After a food break, the chances of being paroled jumped back up to about 65 percent.
More information about judicial decisions:
Other factors that are commonly researched 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 that are based on political or personal considerations by the judge. Judicial restraint is when a judge is expected to have restricted himself or herself from allowing personal bias to affect his or her decision.
In the United States, judges are expected to disqualify, or recuse, themselves from cases when they might have a personal bias or personal knowledge.