Can we justify judicial bias if it is based on health needs?
No. Judges must restrain every bias from entering into decision-making.
Yes. Therapeutic jurisprudence is judicial bias in favor of health needs.
Yes. Whoever needs the most healthcare should get it through the courts if necessary.
No. Judges should allow bias in favor of scientifically-proven facts, not need to maintain health.
Yes. The goal of judicial systems is to improve the health of the parties.
Yes. But only if the health of the whole community is given priority over legalism.
pollcode.com
free polls
Should the court always rule against men who cannot control their testosterone urges?
Yes. Androgens mediate winner effects. [Evolution and Human Behavior, 38:4, July 2017, pp530-535]
No. Judges should be biased in favor of their legal procedures and laws.
Yes. The winner of a dominance dispute uses the resulting testosterone boost to fight again.
No. Judges should threaten men that they will jail them the next time they get caught succumbing.
Yes. Judges must force men who cannot control their aggression, lust and hostility into a program.
pollcode.com
free polls
Should a judge always rule in favor of men who need more testosterone in order to serve society?
No. Female sex already increases the risk of being treated unfairly.
Yes. Because the win will boost their testosterone levels so that they won\'t have to take steroids.
Only in high-strain jobs, because unfairness is positively associated with higher job strain.
No. If they lose their job, they should find a more suitable job.
pollcode.com
free polls
Should judicial decisions be based primarily upon empirical evidence provided by research in the natural sciences?
Yes. In comparison, social and other soft sciences create relatively more biases.
No. Judges should never allow bias of any kind to enter into decision-making.
Yes. Hard science provides a potential mechanism for overcoming any biases it creates.
No. Statisticians can twist scientific facts into fiction that judges cannot see through.
pollcode.com
free polls
Should judges base decisions on analysis, emotions or perceptions in uncertainty?
Analysis exposes and corrects for bias in decision-making.
Emotional reactions mediate the identifiable victim bias effect.
Perceived impact mediates the proportion dominance bias effect.
Perceived responsibility mediates the in-group bias effect.
Judgment under uncertainty reflects both automatic and controlled processes.
pollcode.com
free polls