INTRODUCTION
The proverb, “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” is a timeless reminder to look past the surface appearance of any person or a thing. However, in reality, the appearance of a person plays a profound role in the decision-making process, whether it’s a conscious decision or not. We tend to choose the attractive person over the unattractive from choosing a life partner to pardoning someone for the crimes they committed.
The decision-making process for sentencing a person for a crime includes many extra-legal factors like age, gender, race, etc. Among them is the offender’s attractiveness, even though it is often combined with other factors such as speaking skills, social mannerisms, etc.
In criminology, a similar question arises: Are attractive people less likely to commit crimes, or are they not punished as they should be? This blog delves into the intersection of beauty, bias, and criminal behaviour, unravelling the complex relationship between physical appearance and the decision-making process of judges.
PSYCHOLOGY OF ATTRACTIVENESS AND DECISION MAKING
Psychological phenomena like the halo effect, talk about how the impression of an individual, which is based on a single character (e.g. Physical attraction) influences the overall perception of that individual (e.g. Intelligence, morality) and the attractiveness bias theory where the attractive individuals are perceived positively than their less attractive peers, it talks about how the attractiveness of an individual gives them more advantage over various situations in day-to-day life.
Cesare Lombroso’s theory of crime, he mentions how criminals can be identified by their physical appearances such as “Sloping foreheads, receding chins and broad jaws, large, broad cheekbones and hooked noses, asymmetry of the face, abnormalities in skull shape and size.” he suggests that individual with physical defects or unpleasant physical characters are prone to criminality.[1]
Later Swami et al. proposed the attractiveness-leniency theory, which suggests that physically attractive individuals are less likely to be perceived as guilty and if found guilty, are more likely to get lenient punishment compared to less attractive individuals.[2]
This was shown in a meta-analysis conducted on mock jurors’ judgment, to assess the effects of the physical attractiveness of the defendants. The results showed that when the mock jurors think the defendants to be attractive, they are less likely to find them guilty and tend to recommend punitive punishments. Although these effects were varied according to the crimes committed. Understanding this psychological phenomenon is crucial for the interpretation of the impact of physical attractiveness on jurors’ decision-making process.
INFLUENCE OF ATTRACTIVENESS ON JURY DECISION
A great number of studies have been done to determine whether the physical attraction of an individual plays any significant role in the decision-making process, especially in courtrooms.
In a mock trial conducted by Efran, jurors were more confident in convicting unattractive defendants and when the attractive defendants were found guilty, they were less confident in their guilty verdicts.
The Pennsylvanian study where real court cases in Pennsylvania were recorded along with the detailed physical attractiveness of the defendants. The results showed that unattractive defendants were punished higher than attractive defendants.
These studies show that judges like others are susceptible to the attractive bias theory, and these decisions can often operate outside of their conscious awareness. If not properly handled it could result in the tipping of the scales of justice.
In another study where the participants were given images of criminals with a burglary scenario, the criminals rated as unattractive were given higher sentencing of 51.55% than their attractive counterparts.
We not only see this bias in courtrooms but also in police stations and even among victims, who may unconsciously favour attractive individuals, up-levelling the justice process.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
Physical attractiveness is subjective and its impact can vary among the jurors. The halo effect can lead to biased outcomes and unequal justice, as it favours attractive individuals over the unattractive. However, bigger and heinous crimes don’t provide leniency with attractiveness.
The study done by Downs and Lyons where 2,235 defendants’ attractiveness levels were rated and judges set fines and bail amounts for felony cases and misdemeanour. The results showed that attractiveness influenced the bail and fine amounts only for misdemeanours and not for felony cases. This finding suggests that leniency theory is mitigated in serious crimes.
Moreover, when attractive defendants are accused of crimes involving attractive perpetrators such as swindle neither the halo effect nor leniency theory has any hold. A contradicting theory called the Beauty penalty suggests that people presume attractive people to exploit their beauty and use it to cheat other people, thus creating a negative judgment around attractive people.
To counter this halo effect and reduce the effect of the extra-legal factors, careful consideration of the evidence and rational thinking are to be put to use by the jurors when conferring judgments. By ignoring these irrelevant factors, the consequences of the halo effect and leniency theory can be decreased. In due course, the principle of blind justice, embodied by the lady justice, must be upheld to serve fair justice.
Acknowledging the existence of subconscious biases can also help us regulate our conscious thoughts and decisions. By self-reflection and re-evaluation of our thoughts, we can analyze and critically evaluate whether our choices have been influenced by biases. This might allow us to make informed and impartial choices.
Similar to Cesare Lombroso’s observation, cognitive biases often operate outside the threshold of our conscious awareness thereby influencing our perception. Hence why we must take steps to ensure justice in the legal process must be served impartially and equitably without the impact of these biases.
SOCIAL AND CULTURAL FACTORS
The social and cultural norms play a role in the halo effect. In Western culture, physical attraction is often viewed with positive traits and it comes with positive benefits. From securing better jobs, and enjoying stronger social connections to being successful in life, dating, marriage etc.
The physical attractiveness of an individual often elicits positive emotions resulting in the perception that these individuals as trustworthy, moral and competent. The cultural ideals of beauty, backed up by the media and societal pressure push the stereotype of “What is beautiful is good”, as a result, the crimes committed by attractive individuals might be overlooked, dismissed, or underreported.
In addition, the association of beauty with innocence is a dangerous bias while viewing high-profile cases that involve attractive perpetrators. For example, Ted Bundy, abused his good looks and charm to avoid suspicion while committing heinous crimes.
There’s a misconception that when physically attractive individuals engage in crime, they tend to gravitate toward white-collar crimes, leveraging their charm and appearance to deceive their victims. In opposition, violent or petty crimes, which are associated with socioeconomic disadvantage, are overlooked when the perpetrators are physically attractive.
CONCLUSION
The intersection of beauty, bias, and criminal behaviour shows a complex relationship between attractiveness and jurors’ decision-making. As demonstrated in various research, where attractive defendants received lenient punishment compared to unattractive defendants.
The attractive biases backed by social and cultural norms work outside conscious decisions. The decision-making process has a lot of layered biases. To ensure fairness and to unpack these biases, conscious self-reflection and rational thinking help us in achieving a fairer justice system, ensuring that neither beauty nor bias stands in the way of justice.
Author(s) Name: Sharadha (SASTRA University, Thanjavur)
References:
[1] ‘Lombroso Theory of Criminology’ LawBhoomi, November 14, 2024
<https://lawbhoomi.com/lombroso-theory-of-criminology/#Physical_Characteristics_of_Criminals> accessed 28 February 2025.
[2] Viren Swami, Elizabeth Arthey and Adrian Furnham, ‘Perceptions of Plagiarisers: The Influence of Target Physical Attractiveness, Transgression Severity, and Sex on Attributions of Guilt and Punishment’ (2017) 22 Body Image, 144 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.06.009> accessed 28 February 2025.
