Abstract

This paper examines the intersection of legal positivism and rationality in the context of the judicial system. Legal positivism, rooted in the Enlightenment movement, emphasizes the separation of law from morality and the factual basis of law. However, the discretion given to judges in interpreting and applying the law may make the rationality suffer as a result of overburdened judiciary, resulting in inconsistent and irrational decision-making. Decision fatigue refers to the mental exhaustion that occurs when individuals are faced with making numerous decisions over an extended period. This paper explores the impact of various factors on judges' rationality and objectivity, drawing on empirical studies that demonstrate things like the influence of factors such as mental exhaustion and glucose levels on judicial decision- making. Furthermore, it questions the effectiveness of legal education and experience in enhancing decision-making skills, highlighting the limitations of the case method in developing evaluative reasoning abilities. The findings suggest that the current legal system may not effectively promote rational decision-making, and there is a need for further empirical research and reforms to address the limitations and improve the rationality of judicial judgments. There is a need for further empirical studies to relate them with jurisprudential theories as to how they perform in real world and practice. An attempt has been made also to highlight the importance of such studies.

Keywords