In contrast to earlier research that suggested judges who have not eaten render harsher decisions, a study released on Monday found that Muslim judges are more likely to render lenient decisions while fasting during Ramazan.
According to the “hungry judge effect,” judges in Israel were more likely to refuse parole to criminals before lunch than after, according to a 2011 study.
The lead author of the new study, Sultan Mehmood of Russia’s New Economic School, told AFP that he was interested to see if the same effect happened during the holy month of Ramazan when Muslims typically fast from dawn to dusk.
Mehmood and two other economists searched through a massive amount of data on criminal sentencing, including about 500,000 cases and 10,000 judges, spanning 50 years in Pakistan and India, two of the three nations with the largest Muslim populations.
According to Mehmood, they were “surprised” to discover the opposite of the hungry judge effect.
Read Govt issues new office hours for Ramazan, Summer Season
According to a study published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour, there was a “sharp and statistically significant” increase in acquittals from Muslim judges during Ramadan, but there was no such increase for non-Muslim judges.
Mehmood claimed that Muslim judges in both nations granted acquittals at a rate that was typically 40% higher during the month of Ramadan than at other times of the year.
And the longer the judges went without food and water, the more lenient they became.
They were 10% more likely to acquit with each additional hour of fasting, the study said.
‘The idea of clemency’
The researchers also tried to quantify whether the more lenient decisions were better or worse than those made outside of Ramadan.
They found that the defendants on the receiving end of the lenient decisions were no more likely to commit another crime.
The rate of recidivism was generally slightly lower – including for defendants of violent crimes such as armed robbery and murder.
The lenient judgments were also less likely to be appealed, the study said.
“The probability that the initial verdict was overturned was also lower,” said Avner Seror, a study co-author and economist at France’s Aix-Marseille University.
Seror said that Ramadan was “well-suited to statistical analysis” because it offers numerous avenues for comparison, from being held on different dates every year to the duration of fasting differing depending on when the sun rises and sets.
He suggested that the change in the judges’ decision-making could be connected to “the idea of clemency inherent in the Muslim ritual, a little like the spirit of Christmas among Christians”.
“But it goes further because it seems to help the judges make the right decision,” he added.
The researchers hypothesized that because previous studies have shown that intermittent fasting can enhance mood, cognition, and memory, judges may be able to make wiser decisions.
Mehmood claimed that when he conducted research on Pakistani judges, they all concurred that “we are too lenient” during Ramazan.
He continued, “I don’t know if they agree whether this is a good thing or not.
