Data

USEFUL NOTES FOR:

how to apply probability concepts to evaluate judges’ performance.

Introduction

Judges are the most powerful people in our society. They decide whether a person stays in jail or is released, how much bail they must pay and what kind of treatment they receive while incarcerated. But it’s easy to see why judges might make mistakes: they have broad discretion to determine which facts they will rely on and which ones they won’t consider relevant to the matter before them. However, because judges do not typically record or explain their reasoning for rejecting certain facts, it is difficult for researchers like us to evaluate their performance objectively.”

Judges are often the first people to decide whether an accused person stays in jail or is released, and how much bail they must pay. They make decisions about whether a child should be taken from their parents and placed in foster care. And judges interpret laws that determine how we vote, how we work, where we live, how our children are educated—almost every aspect of life in America.

Judges are often the first people to decide whether an accused person stays in jail or is released, and how much bail they must pay. They make decisions about whether a child should be taken from their parents and placed in foster care. And judges interpret laws that determine how we vote, how we work, where we live, how our children are educated—almost every aspect of life in America.

In addition to these duties they have other responsibilities: they must be able to interpret complex laws (which can vary by state), ensure fairness towards both sides of a case (even if one side seems more appealing), make sure everyone has an opportunity for justice regardless of income level or race/ethnicity/gender identity/sexual orientation etcetera..

The ability of a judge to serve justice is compromised when the judge doesn’t have the facts straight.

The ability of a judge to serve justice is compromised when the judge doesn’t have the facts straight. A factually incorrect ruling can lead to wrongful convictions, unjust sentences, and unjust outcomes. An inaccurate perspective on what happened in a case can cause an innocent person to be wrongly convicted or sentenced for a crime that they didn’t commit. The same goes for cases where someone did commit a crime but was given an overly harsh sentence because they were judged guilty based purely on circumstantial evidence (i.e., circumstantial evidence alone).

However, judges can be wrong about what facts to rely on when making these decisions. For example, in 2018, a New Jersey judge sentenced a defendant to jail based on false documents filed by the prosecutor. In another recent case, a Texas judge revoked a mother’s parental rights based on information in her file that was not accurate.

However, judges can be wrong about what facts to rely on when making these decisions. For example, in 2018, a New Jersey judge sentenced a defendant to jail based on false documents filed by the prosecutor. In another recent case, a Texas judge revoked a mother’s parental rights based on information in her file that was not accurate.

These cases highlight how human beings make mistakes—and how judges are human beings too! Judges have the authority and discretion to make decisions that affect people’s lives. This means there are many opportunities for error or bias.

Judges have broad discretion to determine which facts they will rely on and which ones they won’t consider relevant to the matter before them. But because judges do not typically record or explain their reasoning for rejecting certain facts, it is difficult for researchers like us to evaluate their performance objectively.

Judges have broad discretion to determine which facts they will rely on and which ones they won’t consider relevant to the matter before them. But because judges do not typically record or explain their reasoning for rejecting certain facts, it is difficult for researchers like us to evaluate their performance objectively.

For example, a report may testify that a defendant was found guilty of theft at trial by a jury but later released on bail pending appeal (the report would then say that there was no evidence supporting this claim). This could mean that the judge did not find any evidence supporting his finding of guilt—or alternatively, it might mean that he found some evidence but decided not to rely on it because he felt it was too speculative or unreliable (e.g., based solely on hearsay). Without knowing what type of information led him not only not find sufficient grounds for conviction but also reject its relevance entirely, we cannot know whether our statistics accurately reflect how well-reasoned decisions really were made by judges across all cases being reviewed during those periods when data were collected from each state’s judiciary system

Conclusion

Judges are supposed to be fair and impartial, but many judges do not have complete information about the facts of cases before them. When judges make decisions without having all the facts straight or by relying on incorrect information, this can result in wrongful convictions for defendants who are innocent. We believe that it’s important for judges to be held accountable for their performance as well as their behavior towards those they preside over in court proceedings.