Jurors are more likely to convict and give longer sentences to unattractive criminals, according to a Cornell University study. Experiential thinkers were harsher on unattractive defendants. The same biases may apply to judges. Other influences tested were church attendance, drug addiction, and academic achievements.
A Cornell University study found that jurors are about 20 percent more likely to convict unattractive criminals than attractive ones. Jurors are also likely to recommend much longer sentences for unattractive defendants, averaging up to 22 months longer.
Learn more about influences on jurors:
The same study found that jurors can usually be divided into two groups, rational thinkers and experiential thinkers. Although both groups treated the attractive defendants roughly equally, the experiential thinkers were much harsher on the unattractive defendants.
Given the study data, the researchers believe that the same biases apply to judges as well, because other studies show that there is an approximately 80 percent correlation between jury verdicts and judges’ decisions.
Other potential influences the study tested were church attendance, drug addiction, being on a university’s president’s list, or grant collection. Although the jurors were slightly more positive about those defendants who attended church or were on the provost’s list, they were much more negative about those who were receiving benefits or were addicted to drugs.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
