Judicial decisions are made based on the application of laws to facts. Here, facts are a true narration of events and laws are rules, prescribed publicised and certain but the precision study is implemented by humans with their judicial mind; the judicial mind encompasses greatness but also contains flaws, follies and most importantly is susceptible to outside factors such as morals, gastronomy, heat hypothesis and others.
All this adulterates the seamlessly pure process and the weather conditions especially the harsh weather conditions of the district courts of Pakistan play a role in the judicial decision-making.
Various theories tend to tender an explanation on how judges and when judges reach a judicial decision, some of the theories include realist approach, formalist theory and transcendence theory and whilst they all diverge in their explanation of rational behind judicial decision making, they all converge to showcase that judicial decision are just not simply made based on applying of the facts to law but has to do with other outside factors that influence the legal decisions. This would explain how differing decisions are reached and how after some time new jurisprudence is formed.
The notion that the gastronomy or meal of a judge can affect the legal outcome seems to be far-fetched but in reality, the same is true. Various studies have been conducted on this point and a perusal of the outcomes of the 2012 study by Ben Gurion and Columbia University proves the same.
The study outlined that judges tend to give harsher verdicts when hungry and the same have a more lenient interpretation of the law after a break when full. Whilst some have contradicted the study, the explanation of the same is presented by a 2016 study by the University of Gothenburg. Here it was pointed out that when one is hungry stomach produces a hormone named ghrelin which affects one’s ability to think properly. Hence, the diet of the judge affects the legal decisions they make.
Now, knowing that the outside factors affect the legal decision-making, it is not out of place to consider how the harsh weather conditions especially heat may affect the legal decisions. Various studies have been conducted which outlined that heat has an effect on the thinking and decision-making capabilities of the persons.
The studies conducted by Monash Business School and Harvard outline that warmer weather can lead to poor decision-making and a latency in deliberation/reaction time. This phenomenon is known as the Heat Hypothesis which outlines that warmer months/warmer temperatures can lead to an increase in angry, aggressive, and violent behaviour. The heat affects our body by increasing metabolic rate, testosterone and, heart rate.
This does not only trigger the likelihood of mental conditions but all and all triggers the fight or flight mood which decreases the capacity to think rationally, and results in fits of anger or/being easily irritated.
Angry, irritated and frustrated judges sitting in cramped-up courts with a lack of proper ventilation and no proper infrastructure may try their hardest to carefully listen to parties, judiciously read the law and apply the same but they might fail to do the same. They will not fail because they are incompetent or are not willing to do their job but rather the outside circumstances are against them and are preventing them from doing their job to their fullest.
With the above in consideration and knowing that the lives of many litigants are at stake than it is safe to assume that not only is the weather affecting the legal decisions being made but it is also negatively affecting the lives of many who present themselves before the heat-exhausted judge.
Whilst, many would differ and they would argue that law is certain and settled by the Superior Courts. They might say the decisions of the Superior Courts are to be followed blindly under the principle of binding precedents and lawyers are quick to find such cases and point them out.
However, one has to understand that the past precedent is distinguishable on facts even by subordinate courts and even within prescribed law or its settled points the judge still possesses the judicial discretion to give greater or lesser rewards and similarly a difficult or relaxed punishment and this judicial discretion is also impaired in the excruciating heat.
Here, it is also important to point out that the heat hypothesis not only affects the judges alone, but it also negatively affects all others including the lawyers, parties and the witnesses.
The same impairments prevent others from thinking rationally and acting accordingly; The pent-up emotions rise high, many compromises are compromised, suits are sacked and other mistakes are made which can result in the occurrence of grave injustices.
To curb the negative effects of the heat hypothesis and limit the miscarriage of justice, the infrastructure of the courts especially the district courts needs to be improved.
The writer is a freelance columnist.
The courts, especially the district courts, need to be cooled either by placing air-conditioning or by creating proper ventilation, it must be ensured that proper space for people and other relevant court material is present. Other outside factors such as cleaning, parking, filing, case management and speed of the trial, all need to improve but at the very least the heat hypothesis needs to be looked into.
