In the last post I pointed to an article that defended abandoning the use of “reptilian” argumentation in the courtroom. This time I’ll point to a recent study at Cornell University that indicates that how good-looking a person is, may influence his our her sentence in a court of law. While this isn’t exactly new – there’s a respectable amount of evidence that points that better looking people receive smaller sentences – this study sheds light to an interesting fact: that jurors who process information emotionally are more prone to this bias:
It’s the last place you want to be judged on your looks. But in a court of law, it pays to be attractive, according to a new Cornell study that has found that unattractive defendants tend to get hit with longer, harsher sentences — on average 22 months longer in prison.
The study also identified two kinds of jurors: Those who process information emotionally and give harsher verdicts to unattractive defendants and those who do it rationally and focus less on defendants’ looks.
You can read a Cornell Uni. news about the study here.