ASSIGNMENT

Assignment

Abstract

This paper attempts to highlight the correlation between defendant attractiveness and the period of sentence. For the purpose of this study, 80 defendants were interviewed and analyzed the impact of defendant attractiveness on the period of sentence. Participants (N = 80) read a court case that manipulated the factors described above, sentenced the defendant, and rated the defendant on several characteristics. Discussion focuses on how defendant attractiveness may interact with status in sentencing.

Assignment

Introduction

One focus of research in forensic psychology is whether defendant characteristics that are not relevant to a court case, such as attractiveness (Sigall & Ostrove, 1973), influence the decision-making process of jurors. As instructed by a judge, jurors are only to consider defendant characteristics that are relevant to the case, such as motive. However, an important and potentially disturbing conclusion regarding defendant characteristics is that this irrelevant information does systematically affect a juror's decision (Efran, 1974; Frances & Wrightsman, 1982).

To examine how these factors influence the sentencing phase of a trial, we first review past research indicating that defendant characteristics (such as attractiveness, gender, and socio-economic status) play an influential role in juror sentencing. Second, we propose two possible mechanisms that explain how defendant characteristics influence juror sentencing: stereotypes and the halo effect. Finally, we describe a study designed to examine the effect of three factors - status, community involvement, and the severity of a crime - on sentencing.

Past evidence demonstrates that irrelevant defendant characteristics have an effect on juror sentencing. According to research by Dion, Berscheid, and Walster (1972), attractiveness is a characteristic that leads to generally favorable impressions of others. One advantage of attractive individuals is their likelihood to receive lesser sentences if found guilty ofa crime. Downs and Lyons (1991) found that highly attractive defendants in misdemeanor cases received less in fines than unattractive defendants. Much like attractiveness, gender is a defendant characteristic that is obvious and accessible to jurors, which makes it easy for a juror to employ common gender stereotypes. Jurors associate positive or negative qualities with these stereotypes, for example, women are more nurturing and men are more aggressive, and thus, use these stereotypes during the sentencing phase of a trial (Forster-Lee, Fox, & Forster-Lee, 2004).

Two processes that might dictate how irrelevant defendant characteristics influence jurors are the halo effect and stereotyping. In the halo effect, jurors use their attitudes toward one characteristic of a defendant as a shortcut to make other judgments about the person; basing decisions of guilt or innocence on these pre-determined attitudes. In short, jurors perceive attractive defendants as being more virtuous; therefore, they are more lenient when sentencing (Sigall & Ostrove, 1973; Downs & Lyons, 1991). In contrast, jurors perceive unattractive defendants as transgressors and are harsher in their sentences (Downs & Lyons, 1991; Landy & Aronson, 1969). An additional defendant characteristic that might initiate the halo effect is community involvement, which as of now has received little attention in legal research.

Stereotyping is a second process contributing to an effect of defendant characteristics on ...