According to a study released on Monday, Muslim judges are more likely to render lenient judgments while fasting during Ramadan, in contrast to earlier research that suggested judges who have not eaten render harsher judgments. According to a 2011 study known as “the hungry judge effect,” judges in Israel were more likely to deny criminals parole before lunch than after. The lead researcher on the new study, Sultan Mehmood of Russia’s New Economic School, told AFP that he was interested in observing whether the same result transpired during the holy month of Ramadan when Muslims typically fast from dawn to dusk. Mehmood and two other economists combed through an enormous amount of data on criminal sentencing—roughly half a million cases and 10,000 judges—covering a 50-year period in Pakistan and India, two of the three nations with the largest Muslim populations. Mehmood claimed that they had been “surprised” to discover the opposite of the hungry judge effect. According to the study published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour, there was no such increase for non-Muslim judges during Ramadan, but there was a “sharp and statistically significant” increase in acquittals from Muslim judges. Mehmood claimed that Muslim judges in both countries acquitted defendants 40% more frequently during Ramadan than they did at other times of the year. And the longer the judges went without food and water, the more lenient they became. They were 10% more likely to acquit with each additional hour of fasting, the study said. ‘The idea of clemency’ The researchers also tried to quantify whether the more lenient decisions were better or worse than those made outside of Ramadan. They found that the defendants on the receiving end of the lenient decisions were no more likely to commit another crime. The rate of recidivism was generally slightly lower – including for defendants of violent crimes such as armed robbery and murder. The lenient judgments were also less likely to be appealed, the study said. “The probability that the initial verdict was overturned was also lower,” said Avner Seror, a study co-author and economist at France’s Aix-Marseille University. Seror said that Ramadan was “well-suited to statistical analysis” because it offers numerous avenues for comparison, from being held on different dates every year to the duration of fasting differing depending on when the sun rises and sets. He proposed that “the idea of clemency inherent in the Muslim ritual, a little like the spirit of Christmas among Christians” may be related to the change in the judge’s decision-making. He continued, “But it goes further because it seems to assist the judges in reaching the appropriate conclusion. The researchers hypothesized that because previous studies have shown that intermittent fasting can enhance mood, cognition, and memory, judges may be able to make wiser decisions. Mehmood claimed that when he conducted research on Pakistani judges, they all concurred that “we are too lenient” during Ramadan. He continued, “I don’t know if they agree whether this is a good thing or not.