Angry_runt
Cursed OGcel
★★★★★
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2017
- Posts
- 11,725
- Physical Attractiveness had a significant influence on judges sentencing. The more unattractive the criminal, the higher the sentence. Or conversely, the more attractive the criminal, the lower the sentence. The results of three studies show a minimum increase of 119.25% and a maximum increase of 304.88%.
- Attractiveness had little to no effect on a judge’s verdict of guilt. Attractive and unattractive criminals were convicted equally.
- Mock jurors generally sentenced unattractive criminals significantly higher than attractive criminals. However, as jurors do not determine sentencing in real court cases, these results are not directly applicable.
- Attractiveness had minor effects on mock juror’s verdicts. Some studies reported minor effects and some studies reported no effects.
- Generally, attractive people are perceived as more intelligent, more socially skilled, more appealing personalities, more moral, more altruistic, more likely to succeed, more hirable as managers, and more competent. Attractive people tend to have better physical health, better mental health, better dating experiences, earn more money, obtain higher career positions, chosen for jobs more often, promoted more often, receive better job evaluations, and chosen as business partners more often, than unattractive people.
- I believe that the attractiveness bias is rarely conscious. I do not think people are consciously disfavouring unattractive people. I also do not place moral blame on the typical person for their unconscious bias.
From https://www.thelawproject.com.au/blog/attractiveness-bias-in-the-legal-system
