Jurors Give Good-Looking Defendants a Break

Yes, in the U.S., it turns out that you really can go to prison for being too ugly.

We already knew that the taller and better-looking among us are awarded more perks in the workplace — more generous salaries, superior benefits. Now, the latest news is that being attractive also holds some serious currency in the courts as well. According to a new Cornell University study, less-presentable defendants are 22% more likely to be convicted than attractive ones. If that wasn't bad enough, it turns out that for defendants, being unattractive translates into longer sentences, too — 22 months longer than average.

It's a grim finding (one that brings new meaning to the old song: U-G-L-Y, you ain't got no alibi!). But at least being blonde and nicely proportioned won't necessarily get you off murder charges — in "serious cases with strong evidence," evidently, the difference in conviction rates between attractive and unattractive defendants was pretty minor. Still, though, in cases involving lighter charges, with more speculative evidence, jurors (in this study, 169 Cornell undergraduates) were far more sympathetic to the better-looking.

Kind of reminds me of my time working in a New York public defender's office, where lawyers sometimes wearily complained that the best thing they could do for their clients was wear a slightly shorter skirt.

Actually, on the subject of sex appeal and sentencing, it turns out that there's a good amount of precedent out there. In fact, over 30 studies conducted over the past 65 years have found similar results, says Justin J. Gunnell, the Cornell study's researcher. Academics at the U.K.'s Bath Spa University, for example, have likewise found in years past that attractive defendants are more likely to be acquitted than homely ones.

As CBS quips, it turns out that justice isn't so blind after all.

Photo Credit: chesi - Fotos CC