Tired Judges? An Examination of the Effect of Decision Fatigue in Bail Proceedings

Abstract

The current study begins to answer the recent call for scholars to reinvigorate the use of observational data to understand courtroom decisions. Drawing on the psychological effects of decision fatigue, the current study examines 284 bail hearing cases from two New Jersey jurisdictions to explore the role of decision fatigue on judges’ engagement, judicial deviations from prosecutors’ recommendations, and set bail amounts. The results suggest that judicial fatigue, measured as case order and session duration, limited the engagement for one judge, affected set bail amounts for both judges, and that proceeding modality may play some role in fatigue and engagement. Findings also suggest that observational data can work in tandem with administrative data to give better insight into the court process and decisions. Limitations and future research are discussed.

Keywords

decision fatigue judicial decision-making judicial engagement bail decisions

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albonetti

C. A.

(1989). Bail and judicial discretion in the District of Columbia. Sociology and Social Research, 74(1), 40–47.

Albonetti

C. A.

(1991). An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problems, 38(2), 247–266.

Baldwin

J. M.

Eassey

J. M.

Brooke

E. J.

(2020). Court operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 743–758.

Baumeister

R. F.

Bratslavsky

Muraven

Tice

D. M.

(1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265.

Baumeister

R. F.

Tierney

(2012). Willpower: Rediscovering the greatest human strength. Penguin Books.

Baumer

E. P.

(2013). Reassessing and redirecting research on race and sentencing. Justice Quarterly, 30(2), 231–261.

Bryant

(2011, April 11). Judges are more lenient after taking a break, study finds. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/apr/11/judges-lenient-break

Campbell

C. M.

Labrecque

R. M.

Weinerman

Sanchagrin

(2020). Gauging detention dosage: Assessing the impact of pretrial detention on sentencing outcomes using propensity score modeling. Journal of Criminal Justice, 70, 101719.

Casper

J. D.

Tyler

Fisher

(1988). Procedural justice in felony cases. Law & Society Review, 22(3), 483–507.

10.

Clair

(2020). Privilege and punishment: How race and class matter in criminal court. Princeton University Press.

11.

Danziger

Levav

Avnaim-Pesso

(2011a). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(17), 6889–6892.

12.

Danziger

Levav

Avnaim-Pesso

(2011b). Reply to Weinshall-Margel and Shapard: Extraneous factors in judicial decisions persist. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(42), E834–E834.

13.

Diamond

S. S.

Bowman

L. E.

Wong

Patton

M. M.

(2010). Efficiency and cost: The impact of video-conferenced hearings on bail decisions. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100(3), 869–902.

14.

Dollar

C. B.

Ray

Hudson

M. K.

Hood

B. J.

(2018). Examining changes in procedural justice and their influence on problem-solving court outcomes. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36(1), 32–45.

15.

Eagly

I. V.

(2015). Remote adjudication in immigration. Northwestern University Law Review, 109(4), 933–1019.

16.

Feeley

M. M.

(1979). The process is the punishment: Handling cases in a lower criminal court. Russell Sage Foundation.

17.

Glöckner

(2016). The irrational hungry judge effect revisited: Simulations reveal that the magnitude of the effect is overestimated. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(6), 601–610.

18.

Goldkamp

J. S.

(1979). Two classes of accused: A study of bail and detention in American justice. Ballinger.

19.

Hirshleifer

Levi

Lourie

Teoh

S. H.

(2019). Decision fatigue and heuristic analyst forecasts. Journal of Financial Economics, 133(1), 83–98.

20.

Jones

C. E.

(2013). “Give us free”: Addressing racial disparities in bail determinations. New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 16(4), 919–961.

21.

Kohler-Hausmann

(2018). Misdemeanorland: Criminal courts and social control in an age of broken windows policing. Princeton University Press.

22.

Levav

Heitmann

Herrmann

Iyengar

S. S.

(2010). Order in product customization decisions: Evidence from field experiments. Journal of Political Economy, 18(2), 274–299.

23.

Lynch

(2019). Focally concerned about focal concerns: A conceptual and methodological critique of sentencing disparities research. Justice Quarterly, 36(7), 1148–1175.

24.

Muraven

Tice

D. M.

Baumeister

R. F.

(1998). Self-control as a limited resource: Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 774–789.

25.

Nagel

I. H.

(1983). The Legal/Extra-legal controversy: Judicial decisions in pretrial release. Law and Society Review, 17(3), 481–515.

26.

Oto

(2012). When thinking is hard: Managing decision fatigue. EMS World, 41(5), 46–50.

27.

Palinkas

L. A.

M. Y.

Jeong

C. H.

Chor

K. H. B.

Olin

Horwitz

S. M.

Hoagwood

K. E.

(2017). Adoption of innovative and evidence-based practices for children and adolescents in state-supported mental health clinics: A qualitative study. Health Research Policy and Systems, 15(1), 27–27.

28.

Poythress

N. G.

Petrila

McGaha

Boothroyd

(2002). Perceived coercion and procedural justice in the Broward mental health court. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 25(5), 517–533.

29.

Rengifo

A. F.

Flores

S. G.

Jackson

A. N.

(2021). From bright plots to blind spots: Mapping departures in case review post-bail reform in two New Jersey courts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48(1), 96–115.

30.

Riedel

Colao

(2014). Change is hard: The promise of behavioral economics. American Journal of Health Promotion, 28(6), TAHP8–TAHP11.

31.

Spohn

(2000). Thirty years of sentencing reform: The quest for a racially neutral sentencing process. Criminal Justice: The Institute of Justice Journal, 3(1), 427–501.

32.

Steffensmeier

Ulmer

Kramer

(1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, Black, and male. Criminology, 36(4), 763–798.

33.

Stewart

A. F.

Ferriero

D. M.

Josephson

S. A.

Lowenstein

D. H.

Messing

R. O.

Oksenberg

J. R.

Johnston

S. C.

Hauser

S. L.

(2012). Fighting decision fatigue. Annals of Neurology, 71(1), A5–A15.

34.

Thibaut

J. W.

Walker

(1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum.

35.

Tierney

(2011, August 17). Do you suffer from decision fatigue? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-from-decision-fatigue.html

36.

Ulmer

J. T.

(2012). Recent developments and new directions in sentencing research. Justice Quarterly, 29(1), 1–40.

37.

Ulmer

J. T.

(2019). Criminal courts as inhabited institutions: Making sense of difference and similarity in sentencing. Crime & Justice, 48(1), 483–522.

38.

Van Cleve

N. G.

(2016). Crook County: Racism and injustice in America’s largest criminal court. Stanford University Press.

39.

Vohs

K. D.

Baumeister

R. F.

Schmeichel

B. J.

Twenge

J. M.

Nelson

N. M.

Tice

D. M.

(2008). Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: A limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(5), 883–898.

40.

Weinshall-Margel

Shapard

(2011). Overlooked factors in the analysis of parole decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(42), E833–E833.

41.

Zatz

M. S.

(2000). The convergence of race, ethnicity, gender, and class on court decision-making: Looking toward the 21st century. Criminal Justice: The National Institute of Justice Journal, 3(1), 503–552.