No Evidence Found That Judges Give Out Tougher Sentences When Hungry

A recent study has been making headlines claiming that judges give out tougher sentences when they are hungry. However, a closer look at the research reveals that this is not the case. The study in question was conducted by researchers from University of Toronto and Harvard University, and published in the journal Psychological Science. It suggested that hunger could lead to harsher punishments for criminals due to changes in decision-making processes caused by a lack of food. However, upon further examination of the research, it became clear that there was no evidence to support this claim. The study did not actually involve any real judges or court cases; instead, it involved a series of experiments with college students playing the role of “judges” and deciding on appropriate punishments for hypothetical crimes. This means that the results cannot be extrapolated to real life situations where actual judges are making decisions about criminal cases. In addition, other experts have pointed out flaws in the methodology used in this study which could have skewed its results. For example, some participants may have been more likely to give harsher sentences if they were hungry because they had been primed by questions about hunger before being asked to make their decisions. Overall, it appears that there is no evidence to suggest that hunger affects judicial decision-making or sentencing practices in any meaningful way. If it was really the case that hunger affected our brains this much, our society would fall into minor chaos every day at 11:45 am as everyone heads off for lunch! Thankfully though, this does not appear to be an issue we need worry about – so go ahead and enjoy your lunch without fear of tougher sentences!