Judges' election has gathered a lot of momentum in the recent years just like the political elections. How has this impacted the judges? What are its influences on passing judgments in courts?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers may vary.There are at least two schools of thought about whether judges' rulings are influenced solely by the facts of a case and the applicable laws, or whether extralegal factors play a role. Legal formalism is the perspective that judges apply legal rulings to the facts of a case in a careful, rational, mechanical way and pay little heed to political or social influences on, or implications of, their judgments. In contrast, legal realism holds that judges' decisions are influenced by a variety of psychological, social, and political factors, and that judges indeed are concerned about the real-world ramifications of their decisions.One caricature of legal realism is that judges are influenced by very personal matters, such as when they last ate. In fact, there is some empirical support of this idea: In their study of successive parole decisions by experienced judges, Danziger, Levav, and Avnaim-Pesso found that the percentage of favorable rulings dropped from approximately 65% to nearly zero as a morning or afternoon courtroom session wore on, but that the percentage of favorable rulings rose again to about 65% after the judge had taken a food break! Food matters aside, much evidence suggests that trial judges, as human beings, reflect on their own experiences, assumptions, and biases when reaching decisions from the bench, especially when the choice involves some leeway (e.g., deciding whether to allow evidence to be presented in a trial or deciding on the length of a prison sentence). They may have biases for or against certain groups-gay or lesbian persons, racial minorities, and older adults-that affect the way they process evidence and make decisions. Judges who have been prosecutors may maintain their sympathy with the government's evidence in criminal trials; conversely, judges of defendants.