Studies have shown that judges tend to give much harsher sentences just before lunch compared to just after. It’s called the hungry judge effect, and has major implications for the supposed impartiality, fairness, and consistency of judges, and for the concept of free will if their sentencing decisions can be so measurably influenced by their blood sugar levels.
Bottom line is that if you ever find yourself in court, you will want your sentencing to come as soon after a lunch recess as possible, but not before.
Glycemic Index is a measure of how fast the calories from a food become sugar in your bloodstream.
A higher value means a faster, bigger spike in blood sugar. That means it is harder on your pancreas which has to release insulin in response, and tends to overproduce insulin in response to quick spikes in blood sugar.
(So, Snickers spikes your blood sugar way less than a slice of whole wheat bread)
So I’m assuming many candies have a high value which causes u to generally become more hungry after eating a small amount of that candy?
Would also explain why eating an apple by itself almost always makes me hungrier that before I ate it
GI is largely controlled by the mix of macronutrients: having lots of simple carbs and sugar and not a lot of fat/protein/fiber means your body can digest the carbs and absorb the sugars very quickly.
Most candy has no macronutrients besides sugar, so it has close to the highest GI possible.
I don't know much about the connection between blood sugar and appetite, but what you're saying sounds reasonable to me :)
There are very few jobs where you're the boss as much as being a judge. You want a break for a few minutes to eat? Everyone - POTUS and homeless alike - will wait whether they want to or not.
It depends on the nature of the caseload. Sometimes you're on the bench for hours at a time, playing traffic cop for a hundred cases at a time. Sometimes, you're handling one case at a time for fifteen, thirty, sixty minutes each, and you can space things out.
Yeah dude, the up north migration every weekend to the cottage on the lake is real. Or even all of the local waterway access.
I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but that is a the truth. Granted, not really in the city of Detroit, but even the bordering cities have some lovely beaches.
I wondered if something similar was why Judge Merchan held off on ruling on Donald Trump's gag order violations. If he was trying to avoid making a mistake in the heat of the moment.
I think he’s trying to dot every i and cross every t, knowing whatever he does is going to the Supreme Court to become the law of the land in perpetuity. There’s a decent chance Law students will be reading (or law algorithms will be downloading) the Supreme Court opinion from this case a couple hundred years from now (if the US and civilization survive that long).
But I think that’s wholly consistent with your theory too.
Can you point to one of these studies? Because in my country, judges don't come up with sentences on the spot in the courtroom - they present them weeks or months later after doing research, writing their decisions, etc.
Edit: Couldn't find a source but I did find the wiki article suggesting it's another example of an often-quoted-but-not-understood study ([link](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_judge_effect#:~:text=The%20hungry%20judge%20effect%20is,an%20artifact%20of%20case%20scheduling.))
For the lazy, it was one study that found chances of parole in Israel fell the closer the hearing was to a meal break. The researchers speculated that it **could** be from a number of factors, including irritability from hunger. Still, that paper has been cited hundreds of times.
Another study said it was more likely a scheduling factor, though I don't understand how.
Yet more critics claim the frequent mention of the hungry judge effect is an attempt to get jurisdictions to purchase AI for case analysis.
In any case, the effect seems to be exaggerated at best, completely made up at worst.
Here’s a relatively recent paper, but I remember learning about it over a couple decades ago, so there’s a ton of research on the topic going back multiple decades:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=hungry+judge+effect&oq=hungry+judg#d=gs_qabs&t=1714917507447&u=%23p%3DUpeaqms4uS4J
(If that’s paywalls, the full paper is available at one of the author’s personal website: http://www.chrisbublitz.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Bublitz-Draft-Hungry-Judge.pdf)
I remember one study in Israel, which didn't consider that cases were not distributed randomly. IIRC some journalist later found out, that courts started the day with easy cases and petty theft crimes.
This makes me wonder—are judges anywhere just making up the sentences on the spot?
I can see how hanger would make decisions like this more punitive if they were made solely in the moment of hanger.
But you gotta imagine a lot of judging must take place beforehand and over periods not as likely to be dominated by a single mood.
I don't think judges make their decisions on the spot, except for maybe traffic courts and such.
And even taking this one study at face-value, it was for parole hearings, which require a lot of pre-work and reading of reports beforehand. I doubt a parole judge is completely undecided when they show up.
> are judges anywhere just making up the sentences on the spot?
Yes and no. For petty offenses, and traffic tickets, sentences are usually done on the spot. Because the only questions are: how much is a fair fine, and do you deserve points on your license?
For cases where there's a real possibility of jail, judges have time to prepare, and come into the sentencing hearing with an *idea* of what they want. But there's always the possibility that one side will put on evidence or make an argument that surprises the judge and makes him or her move off the plan.
felonies in my jurisdiction have their own hearing date that is on a law day (usually a monday in which many, many cases are scheduled for various reasons). there is a pre-sentence investigation completed by probation and parole which the judge may or may/probably not have reviewed prior to hearing. the prosecutor makes a recommendation and the defendant has an attempt to argue/and or confirm the terms of a plea deal.
so, kind of.
It was to do with staffing levels. A misunderstanding of the data took flight as it was more interesting headline than 'higher risk cirminals are less likely to receive parole '.
The scheduling effect is from when defendants without legal representation are scheduled, towards the end of sessions: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1110910108#body-ref-r1
>Another study said it was more likely a scheduling factor, though I don't understand how.
Cases aren't always scheduled at random in a vacuum. Sometimes they are "triaged," by the court administration. They may be grouped by severity and similarity, or sometimes the easy cases are scheduled for the AM. Different districts and different individual courtrooms may have different scheduling practices.
If case scheduling can be weighted by severity of the case itself, then scheduling could also explain irregularities in results at different times of the day.
I believe some people argue that this study was flawed because (if I remember correctly) often times the more difficult/longer cases are the ones the judges have after lunch— they say that there were more factors that weren’t accounted for in the study.
I don’t know what the truth is, but that is something to consider.
It should be noted that correlation is not causation and there were potentially confounding variables that were not controlled for in the study most often used as a citation for this effect. It may be the case that stronger cases tend to be scheduled for hearing right after lunch because there's guaranteed to be a lot of time in case they go longer than expected, which is probably more likely to happen in stronger cases than in weaker cases. Weaker cases might then naturally fill in the remaining gap before lunch.
The longer I live, the more I land in the “hard determinism” camp. There is no free will. We’re just machines that behave according to the input we receive. Everything is a variable, including your childhood, and all those variables lead to the “choices” you make.
You don’t decide anything - you’re just a big logic gate.
If the laws of physics are any indication, then yeah, you've never consciously used any nebulous, non-physical, pseudo-spiritual force to steer electrochemical exchanges in your nervous system from taking the path of least resistance.
To be fair, the laws of physics allow for quantum effects that have random outcomes. One could certainly hold the belief that these random outcomes could be a little less random than we think appealing to some kind of nebulous, non-physical, pseudo-spiritual force, and would be undetectable to our science. My favorite quote along this line,
“I, like God, do not play with dice and do not believe in coincidence”
-V for vendetta
For basically this reason, the majority position in philosophy on the issue of free will these days is what's known as _compatibilism_, that there's no contradiction between determinism and freedom of choice.
You're definitely going to have to explain how you think this affects the concept of free will. Pretty sure even the most staunch arguments for free will still acknowledge that brain chemistry is part of decision making.
The few times I've been to traffic court, the judge was a penis wrinkle. My last name starts with T, and they went in alphabetical order, so by the time it got around to me, it was almost lunch. I have joked before that they needed a snickers (not to them, of course). It all makes sense now!!!
It was parole boards. It turned out to be nonsense. Staffing levels meant higher risk cases went in the morning. So it looked like a disproportionate number of people weren't getting parole compared to those after lunch.
A complete misunderstanding of the data. Also see the challenger disaster for another example.
Data are worthless if you don't know how to interpret them
> [A study] found that the granting of parole was 65% at the start of a session but would drop to nearly zero before a meal break
That’s insane! Does this apply to other court proceedings? Oops, sorry Hal, you don’t get custody of your kids cause the judge was feeling hangry that morning.
its dan hentschel, the teacher guy, also the guy who posted the popular "at the beach, where the hoes at?" tweet. he's quite funny and I'd reccomend finding more of his content.
Judge was in a rush to get to lunch and was harsh.
I had an English teacher that would only grade 2-3 papers a day because of this. She knew that if she did them in 1 night the grading would keep getting harsher.
Most teachers would never get through their workload if they did that. This is why they're supposed to use a rubric, to make grading the least subjective as possible.
Off topic but god bless the rubric. A exact guide on how little i need to do to pass.
I hate writing essays so the way i managed was was forgoing formatting and most grammar points. giving the teacher everything else they wanted but in point form :) :) :) never failed
I had a world geo teacher in high-school that gave us a 200+ question final exam plus a wold map to list out every single country. He bragged to have graded every single students paper the night before and was visibly tired. I wound up missing only a few countries, while writing in "those islands" for some answers and got marked correct. I truly believe that man graded all the papers in one night lol
Yes but that's a simple Yes or No. These were 10-page papers. So paper 1:
He or she made a small grammatical error and that is not a big deal.
Paper 6:
Missed 1 comma, taking off a full letter grade.
I had a professor who didnt have any TAs and waited to grade all our homework until the night before the final exam and he was also visibly exhausted. One of my friends submitted a blank document for one of the homeworks and got full marks. He clearly did not even open some or maybe any of those assignment submissions.
My father in law was a judge in Alabama. His court secretary always kept granola bars at her desk to throw to him when he started getting (unwarranted) snippy at people because it was getting close to meal time.
I read that as “throw at” instead of “throw to”
Imagining a clerk or secretary beaning the judge with food whenever he started getting snippy is a funny mental image
Yeah I think all judges decisions are final, and then the only way to overturn a ruling is if it gets appealed and taken to a higher court. I think that's the case, but idk law.
In Illinois decisions (judgments) are not final until 30 days after they are issued. During that time parties have the right to ask to clarify/correct the record or to have the Judge reconsider. That way the record is cleaner on appeal and/orthe Court can in fact say "two instead of ten" or otherwise fix errors. It would be much rarer for a Judge to go from 2 to 10, but it can happen. If, for example, a conviction carries a mandatory minimum 6 years and at the initial sentencing hearing the Judge gives a 4 year sentence. This is straight up error and would be reversed on appeal so letting the Judge have the opportunity to fix the error saves everyone the trouble (and if the Defendant is smart he/she never brings this error to the attention of the Judge in the first place and never appeals. I have seen Appellate opinions where the Defendant appealed a sentence and ended up getting more time. Ouch!)
When your blood sugar is low you make bad decisions. This guy is a judge he was hungry and angry (hangry). And he made a poor decision and gave somebody a longer sentence than they deserved and after he eats he realizes it.
I'm interested to see how stuff like this could be used by a defense attorney. Maybe not strictly this example, but there's gonna be a case eventually where a murder conviction gets overturned because the judge admitted to an error on their part or the prosecution's in the middle of doing a kawaii anime girl dance.
"Chubi chubi chappa chappa Denis Lowenthal was incorrectly convicted for murder because the gun was planted in his vehicle lubbi lubbi labba labba."
*uwu*
This guy also uses filters to make himself look older, change hair, and more. His shtick is usually a very unethical therapist, but he changes it up from time to time.
This is one of those jobs that desperately needs an AI assistant to check for consistency. There is also the fact that they are also affected by the Weber effect when giving sentences https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-020-02128-6
The joke is that our justice system is a joke and every day, all over the country, innocent people are punished and guilty people are given privileges, and some times, it's a petty as a man entire life because a single component of the system (judge) is hungry...
The term “hangry” refers to people getting short tempered, irritable, and annoyed when they haven’t eaten in a while.
The judge (or in this case, the guy pretending to be a judge… hopefully) was hangry and realized he was too harsh once he got some food in his belly.
Listen to Robert Sapolsky if you want to learn more about it. He dives pretty deeply into hormonal effects on psyche and a myriad of other things. Disclaimer: he makes some hefty claims that I tend to agree with but not in an absolutist kind of way.
IME judges bring their prejudice to court all the time and it’s a citizens duty to pay attorneys to remind them of the law with no hope of reimbursement. We live in a failing society
Studies have shown that judges tend to give much harsher sentences just before lunch compared to just after. It’s called the hungry judge effect, and has major implications for the supposed impartiality, fairness, and consistency of judges, and for the concept of free will if their sentencing decisions can be so measurably influenced by their blood sugar levels. Bottom line is that if you ever find yourself in court, you will want your sentencing to come as soon after a lunch recess as possible, but not before.
If I were a judge, I’d eat before a court session
Here have a Snickers. You're not you when you're hungry.
Someone should try that with a judge for real lol
And get an extra charge for bribing a government official... Our justice system is a farce.
Or snuggling contraband into the courtroom.
Snuggling?🤣😂🤣😂
He was lonely, OK? Gosh!
Sorry but that was funny 😁 I just couldn't help it 😂 🤣
Yes.... Some Snickers need some snuggling once in a while. Lmao.
Just hold me Snickers
do not snuggle the judge. or do, what do I know maybe it works
That's all that guy wanted to do in Vegas earlier this year!
Or the judge is allergic to peanuts, and gets you for attempted murder.
or the peanuts are allergic to the judge, and gets you for attempted cannibalism
Then bring enough for the entire court. Then its no longer A government official
“Judge” Cannon would delay the opening of the Snickers by 3 months based on an obvious and deliberate misinterpretation of the law.
*/Sam Alito transmogrifies into Thurgood Marshall*
There are jurisdictions where they just moved sentencing to 1:00 for this exact reason. It's a relatively easy problem to solve.
I know your half joking but snickers r surprisingly good at holding you over for a bit compared to other candies
Its the nuts. Paydays are my go to.
thats nuts
You're nuts.
Your nuts
*almost totally nuts
Snickers has a lower Glycemic Index than a slice of whole wheat bread. GI isn't everything, but it's pretty crazy.
I do not know what that means, mind explaining?
Glycemic Index is a measure of how fast the calories from a food become sugar in your bloodstream. A higher value means a faster, bigger spike in blood sugar. That means it is harder on your pancreas which has to release insulin in response, and tends to overproduce insulin in response to quick spikes in blood sugar. (So, Snickers spikes your blood sugar way less than a slice of whole wheat bread)
So I’m assuming many candies have a high value which causes u to generally become more hungry after eating a small amount of that candy? Would also explain why eating an apple by itself almost always makes me hungrier that before I ate it
GI is largely controlled by the mix of macronutrients: having lots of simple carbs and sugar and not a lot of fat/protein/fiber means your body can digest the carbs and absorb the sugars very quickly. Most candy has no macronutrients besides sugar, so it has close to the highest GI possible. I don't know much about the connection between blood sugar and appetite, but what you're saying sounds reasonable to me :)
More like smoke this j, eat this cookie, take a nap, and here’s a free blow job. Now sentence away!
I'm not sure me offering the judge, or any non homosexual male, a blowjob will go over well
No, not from you. He gets to choose the blow job obviously.
Oh okay good cuz my chances might be better if I just didn't offer him anything
You’re not fair, or unbiased when you’re hungry.
I’m a lawyer and one of my good friends is a criminal judge. He brings cashews and candy to every hearing. He says it is so he doesn’t act like this.
There is a ridiculous number of people out there who "don't believe" in the concept of blood sugar levels impacting mood/behavior.
Hell, if I were a judge, I'd eat during the court session
Yeah, that's called breakfast.
You wouldn't because it isn't a 'court session'. You're there for hours. It is a job.
There are very few jobs where you're the boss as much as being a judge. You want a break for a few minutes to eat? Everyone - POTUS and homeless alike - will wait whether they want to or not.
It depends on the nature of the caseload. Sometimes you're on the bench for hours at a time, playing traffic cop for a hundred cases at a time. Sometimes, you're handling one case at a time for fifteen, thirty, sixty minutes each, and you can space things out.
I think the accused should be allowed to bring the judge snacks throughout the trial but especially on the day of sentencing.
Then I’d be burping and have heartburn during court tho
This reminds me of how cars built on Mondays are better than the ones on Friday.
Half-awake people are better car builders than people urging to beach.
Ah yes. The majestic beaches of Detroit.
Yeah dude, the up north migration every weekend to the cottage on the lake is real. Or even all of the local waterway access. I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but that is a the truth. Granted, not really in the city of Detroit, but even the bordering cities have some lovely beaches.
[https://www.worldatlas.com/lakes/lake-st-clair.html](https://www.worldatlas.com/lakes/lake-st-clair.html)
Lake Erie and Lake St Clair?
What if my job is just beach?
Not when they’re hungover. Best day is Wednesday.
Are they? Because I've heard cars with a lot of small problems be called "Monday cars".
I wondered if something similar was why Judge Merchan held off on ruling on Donald Trump's gag order violations. If he was trying to avoid making a mistake in the heat of the moment.
I think he’s trying to dot every i and cross every t, knowing whatever he does is going to the Supreme Court to become the law of the land in perpetuity. There’s a decent chance Law students will be reading (or law algorithms will be downloading) the Supreme Court opinion from this case a couple hundred years from now (if the US and civilization survive that long). But I think that’s wholly consistent with your theory too.
Can you point to one of these studies? Because in my country, judges don't come up with sentences on the spot in the courtroom - they present them weeks or months later after doing research, writing their decisions, etc. Edit: Couldn't find a source but I did find the wiki article suggesting it's another example of an often-quoted-but-not-understood study ([link](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_judge_effect#:~:text=The%20hungry%20judge%20effect%20is,an%20artifact%20of%20case%20scheduling.)) For the lazy, it was one study that found chances of parole in Israel fell the closer the hearing was to a meal break. The researchers speculated that it **could** be from a number of factors, including irritability from hunger. Still, that paper has been cited hundreds of times. Another study said it was more likely a scheduling factor, though I don't understand how. Yet more critics claim the frequent mention of the hungry judge effect is an attempt to get jurisdictions to purchase AI for case analysis. In any case, the effect seems to be exaggerated at best, completely made up at worst.
Here’s a relatively recent paper, but I remember learning about it over a couple decades ago, so there’s a ton of research on the topic going back multiple decades: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=hungry+judge+effect&oq=hungry+judg#d=gs_qabs&t=1714917507447&u=%23p%3DUpeaqms4uS4J (If that’s paywalls, the full paper is available at one of the author’s personal website: http://www.chrisbublitz.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Bublitz-Draft-Hungry-Judge.pdf)
[удалено]
I remember one study in Israel, which didn't consider that cases were not distributed randomly. IIRC some journalist later found out, that courts started the day with easy cases and petty theft crimes.
This makes me wonder—are judges anywhere just making up the sentences on the spot? I can see how hanger would make decisions like this more punitive if they were made solely in the moment of hanger. But you gotta imagine a lot of judging must take place beforehand and over periods not as likely to be dominated by a single mood.
I don't think judges make their decisions on the spot, except for maybe traffic courts and such. And even taking this one study at face-value, it was for parole hearings, which require a lot of pre-work and reading of reports beforehand. I doubt a parole judge is completely undecided when they show up.
> are judges anywhere just making up the sentences on the spot? Yes and no. For petty offenses, and traffic tickets, sentences are usually done on the spot. Because the only questions are: how much is a fair fine, and do you deserve points on your license? For cases where there's a real possibility of jail, judges have time to prepare, and come into the sentencing hearing with an *idea* of what they want. But there's always the possibility that one side will put on evidence or make an argument that surprises the judge and makes him or her move off the plan.
felonies in my jurisdiction have their own hearing date that is on a law day (usually a monday in which many, many cases are scheduled for various reasons). there is a pre-sentence investigation completed by probation and parole which the judge may or may/probably not have reviewed prior to hearing. the prosecutor makes a recommendation and the defendant has an attempt to argue/and or confirm the terms of a plea deal. so, kind of.
It was to do with staffing levels. A misunderstanding of the data took flight as it was more interesting headline than 'higher risk cirminals are less likely to receive parole '.
I realise it’s not a study but if you’re curious, Daniel Kahneman’s book Noise has a good section on this exact thing.
The scheduling effect is from when defendants without legal representation are scheduled, towards the end of sessions: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1110910108#body-ref-r1
>Another study said it was more likely a scheduling factor, though I don't understand how. Cases aren't always scheduled at random in a vacuum. Sometimes they are "triaged," by the court administration. They may be grouped by severity and similarity, or sometimes the easy cases are scheduled for the AM. Different districts and different individual courtrooms may have different scheduling practices. If case scheduling can be weighted by severity of the case itself, then scheduling could also explain irregularities in results at different times of the day.
I believe some people argue that this study was flawed because (if I remember correctly) often times the more difficult/longer cases are the ones the judges have after lunch— they say that there were more factors that weren’t accounted for in the study. I don’t know what the truth is, but that is something to consider.
It should be noted that correlation is not causation and there were potentially confounding variables that were not controlled for in the study most often used as a citation for this effect. It may be the case that stronger cases tend to be scheduled for hearing right after lunch because there's guaranteed to be a lot of time in case they go longer than expected, which is probably more likely to happen in stronger cases than in weaker cases. Weaker cases might then naturally fill in the remaining gap before lunch.
The longer I live, the more I land in the “hard determinism” camp. There is no free will. We’re just machines that behave according to the input we receive. Everything is a variable, including your childhood, and all those variables lead to the “choices” you make. You don’t decide anything - you’re just a big logic gate.
Clearly you haven’t met my mother-in-law.
If the laws of physics are any indication, then yeah, you've never consciously used any nebulous, non-physical, pseudo-spiritual force to steer electrochemical exchanges in your nervous system from taking the path of least resistance.
To be fair, the laws of physics allow for quantum effects that have random outcomes. One could certainly hold the belief that these random outcomes could be a little less random than we think appealing to some kind of nebulous, non-physical, pseudo-spiritual force, and would be undetectable to our science. My favorite quote along this line, “I, like God, do not play with dice and do not believe in coincidence” -V for vendetta
Maybe you should study sociology. This is what sociologists believes. We have no free will due to the influences of society.
Is "we act according to the input we recieve" not what free will *is*? What else could you use to determine what you do?
For basically this reason, the majority position in philosophy on the issue of free will these days is what's known as _compatibilism_, that there's no contradiction between determinism and freedom of choice.
You're definitely going to have to explain how you think this affects the concept of free will. Pretty sure even the most staunch arguments for free will still acknowledge that brain chemistry is part of decision making.
Getting sentenced in an Islamic state during Ramadan must be brutal.
Also attractive people get lighter sentences.
Or, hear me out, bring snacks for the courtroom, it's not bribery if everyone gets some.
judges should be one of the first things to be replaced by AI
Noted. Bring snacks with me to court
The few times I've been to traffic court, the judge was a penis wrinkle. My last name starts with T, and they went in alphabetical order, so by the time it got around to me, it was almost lunch. I have joked before that they needed a snickers (not to them, of course). It all makes sense now!!!
It was parole boards. It turned out to be nonsense. Staffing levels meant higher risk cases went in the morning. So it looked like a disproportionate number of people weren't getting parole compared to those after lunch. A complete misunderstanding of the data. Also see the challenger disaster for another example. Data are worthless if you don't know how to interpret them
Thanks for posting new information I didn't know about! I guess you need to always look at the studies huh?
I mean, judges rule their court rooms pretty much how they want. Give them a snack board!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_judge_effect
> [A study] found that the granting of parole was 65% at the start of a session but would drop to nearly zero before a meal break That’s insane! Does this apply to other court proceedings? Oops, sorry Hal, you don’t get custody of your kids cause the judge was feeling hangry that morning.
couldn't this be because they put the more difficult cases earlier in the session on purpose?
Nope, may well be (which is like half of the very short Wikipedia entry)
Is that the screaming teacher guy?
its dan hentschel, the teacher guy, also the guy who posted the popular "at the beach, where the hoes at?" tweet. he's quite funny and I'd reccomend finding more of his content.
Cocky want boing boing?
I’m glad you guys liked “cocky want boing boing” cause it got me fired
His mental health professional persona was a bit much for me but otherwise I love his content
Thank you niche internet personality aficionado
https://preview.redd.it/ajc0ov98rnyc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5a4f98414ecd35ba213ae4ef6d30eee614664741
Look at my therapist dawg, I am never getting better!!
He’s super funny I love his deeply toxic manipulative boyfriend who gives terrible relationship advice character
Nice pfp
MY STUDENTS ARE MOROOONNNSSS
Judge was in a rush to get to lunch and was harsh. I had an English teacher that would only grade 2-3 papers a day because of this. She knew that if she did them in 1 night the grading would keep getting harsher.
Most teachers would never get through their workload if they did that. This is why they're supposed to use a rubric, to make grading the least subjective as possible.
Small advanced class, but it took a week.
Off topic but god bless the rubric. A exact guide on how little i need to do to pass. I hate writing essays so the way i managed was was forgoing formatting and most grammar points. giving the teacher everything else they wanted but in point form :) :) :) never failed
I had a world geo teacher in high-school that gave us a 200+ question final exam plus a wold map to list out every single country. He bragged to have graded every single students paper the night before and was visibly tired. I wound up missing only a few countries, while writing in "those islands" for some answers and got marked correct. I truly believe that man graded all the papers in one night lol
Yes but that's a simple Yes or No. These were 10-page papers. So paper 1: He or she made a small grammatical error and that is not a big deal. Paper 6: Missed 1 comma, taking off a full letter grade.
I had a professor who didnt have any TAs and waited to grade all our homework until the night before the final exam and he was also visibly exhausted. One of my friends submitted a blank document for one of the homeworks and got full marks. He clearly did not even open some or maybe any of those assignment submissions.
My father in law was a judge in Alabama. His court secretary always kept granola bars at her desk to throw to him when he started getting (unwarranted) snippy at people because it was getting close to meal time.
I read that as “throw at” instead of “throw to” Imagining a clerk or secretary beaning the judge with food whenever he started getting snippy is a funny mental image
i kept missinterpreting it as "i gave a guy life. in prison" pregnant judge
If the judge realized his decision was harsh then why doesn’t he correct it? 🤔
Some judge rulings are almost completely final after the court hearing
Yeah I think all judges decisions are final, and then the only way to overturn a ruling is if it gets appealed and taken to a higher court. I think that's the case, but idk law.
Yeah a judge can't just come back and say, "I meant 2 years not 10."
In Illinois decisions (judgments) are not final until 30 days after they are issued. During that time parties have the right to ask to clarify/correct the record or to have the Judge reconsider. That way the record is cleaner on appeal and/orthe Court can in fact say "two instead of ten" or otherwise fix errors. It would be much rarer for a Judge to go from 2 to 10, but it can happen. If, for example, a conviction carries a mandatory minimum 6 years and at the initial sentencing hearing the Judge gives a 4 year sentence. This is straight up error and would be reversed on appeal so letting the Judge have the opportunity to fix the error saves everyone the trouble (and if the Defendant is smart he/she never brings this error to the attention of the Judge in the first place and never appeals. I have seen Appellate opinions where the Defendant appealed a sentence and ended up getting more time. Ouch!)
Can’t look indecisive.
Because it’s not real?
That’s what appeals courts are for.
I think it might just be a satire post from the "PoV" of a judge realizing it
Because they don't care.
Because it would be illegal.
More often than not they won't. Can't tell you if it's not wanting to admit mistakes or just straight up not caring but yeah... Pretty damn sad
The judge was in a shitty mood because he needed food
This looks like that guy who, dressed in doctors scrubs, is hitting a bong in his car with the caption saying "quick sesh before surgery"
it is that guy! his name is dan hentschel
It's a judge, folks
judges give harsher sentences right before lunch because anger caused by starvation
When your blood sugar is low you make bad decisions. This guy is a judge he was hungry and angry (hangry). And he made a poor decision and gave somebody a longer sentence than they deserved and after he eats he realizes it.
I'm interested to see how stuff like this could be used by a defense attorney. Maybe not strictly this example, but there's gonna be a case eventually where a murder conviction gets overturned because the judge admitted to an error on their part or the prosecution's in the middle of doing a kawaii anime girl dance. "Chubi chubi chappa chappa Denis Lowenthal was incorrectly convicted for murder because the gun was planted in his vehicle lubbi lubbi labba labba." *uwu*
What do you call a lawyer who did terribly in law school? Your Honor.
This guy also uses filters to make himself look older, change hair, and more. His shtick is usually a very unethical therapist, but he changes it up from time to time.
This is one of those jobs that desperately needs an AI assistant to check for consistency. There is also the fact that they are also affected by the Weber effect when giving sentences https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-020-02128-6
Man, David Byrne let himself go…
What a disgusting picture
Chinese food. Eat now, hungry again in an hour.
How does this need explaining? How has education failed you so abjectly?
Nope, sorry, can't take the dumb dumbs who post jokes that 3rd graders understand anymore. Bye bye
Gross. 🤢
“I’ve sent boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn’t want to do it. Felt I…..owed it to them.” -Judge Smails
The legal system is broken.
The joke is that it’s Dan Hentschel and his entire social media presence is pretending to be various characters that are horrible people
There's an ad here. "50 years. No parole!" "Your Honor, here have a Snickers." "30 days, including time served."
The joke is that our justice system is a joke and every day, all over the country, innocent people are punished and guilty people are given privileges, and some times, it's a petty as a man entire life because a single component of the system (judge) is hungry...
Yea all that weed you smoke musta done something if you cant understand this
Don't think it's the weed. I just smoked a wake & bake, and I understood. They probably just never heard about the hungry judge effect before
wtf is this guys twitter TwT
Justice is the whim of the judge
He is a judge
Judge is a dirtbag basically
Hangry
He’s a judge.
just read "when" by Daniel h. Pink. it explains a lot of similar themes and biases we, humans, have
I really want snickers next advert to be a take on this
You are
Bro looks like Oppenheimer.
Snickers commercial
Clearly you've never been hangry
he's a judge, so he sentenced a dude to life because he was hangry
the joke is judicial systems the world over are anything but just
Not a funny joke
There's nothing to get. It's just supposed to be a shocking tiktok
normalize judge snacks jfc
The term “hangry” refers to people getting short tempered, irritable, and annoyed when they haven’t eaten in a while. The judge (or in this case, the guy pretending to be a judge… hopefully) was hangry and realized he was too harsh once he got some food in his belly.
The so-called “hungry judge effect” probably isn’t real; correlation is not causation. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1110910108
you are
I guess this is a judge
Here, have a snickers.
What's really rough is that it was for a parking offence.
Listen to Robert Sapolsky if you want to learn more about it. He dives pretty deeply into hormonal effects on psyche and a myriad of other things. Disclaimer: he makes some hefty claims that I tend to agree with but not in an absolutist kind of way.
Love finding this guy in the wild and seeing people believe him.
[удалено]
²,wz
Snack while judging
[удалено]
🤣
"Would you just eat something, Judge Roy Bean?"
Guy was hangry af
IME judges bring their prejudice to court all the time and it’s a citizens duty to pay attorneys to remind them of the law with no hope of reimbursement. We live in a failing society
This has me wondering, how exactly are sentences determined?