Inspired by this article, which notes that (accused) Russian spy and (confirmed) knockout Anna Chapman is currently negotiating to be included in a prisoner exchange between the US and Russia. The theme of this article seems to be that such an exchange is likely for most of the accused spies. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/world/europe/08russia.html?_r=1&ref=world
I suspect that, of all the accused spies, the US would most like (at least by some amount) to send Ms. Chapman back to Russia via a prisoner exchange. This is because my guess is that it’s harder to convict attractive people, particularly women, in jury trials. People tend to like attractive people, and we don’t want bad things to happen to people we like. Prison is bad.
But that’s just my guess - and guesses, like certain less-pleasant bits of human anatomy, are possessed by all. Do any trial lawdopers have experience with criminal or civil trials involving unusually attractive defendents? Alternatively, does anyone know of any good studies on this issue?
(I’m sticking this in IMHO, not GQ, because I’m calling for anecdotes alongside real data.)
I would ask the same quesiton but substitute LIKEABLE for attractive.
It’s definately harder to convict a defendent that is likeable to the jury. Whether that likeablity comes from stunning looks or just a cute little old lady is an individual matter.
Which is where folks like Lohan lose. Many celebrities are famous for being snotty pains in the ass who think they can do whatever they want and get away with it. Such mindsets tend to have the opposite effect on common folk who start thinking its time to teach “Little Ms Superstar” a lesson and throw the book at her.
This is somewhat off-topic, but I do know that blacks were (many years ago, maybe still) charged higher auto insurance premiums not because they had more accidents (they didn’t) but because juries tended to discount their testimony more.
Yes. Looks make a difference and they should not matter but they do. I was watching the blond teacher on ID who could easily be a model that had sex with her student. She got off in more ways then one. No jail time and they took her teaching permit away. Any other teacher, male or female, would go to jail.
There was a study done on this subject done not to long ago. The findings were attractive people were judged less harshly. It was easier for them to get off on many offenses. The more severe the crime however the less the ‘attractive factor’ impacted jury decisions.
On trial for petty theft the jury is more likely to let the beautiful people go. On trial for murder however the beautiful people need to mount just as vigorous defense as the ugly people.
I read an article once, and I wish I could remember what publication, but a study showed that attractive people ARE tougher to convict, that people do tend to rationalize and construct excuses for them. With one exception–cases where their attractiveness was an element of their crime (e.g., the “temptress” who manipulates some dope into killing her husband). In those instances, being attractive was a disadvantage; it was a “repugnant attractiveness,” so to speak.
The teacher that I was trying to think of was Debra Lafave. Her looks definately helped her to stay out of jail while other teachers are doing 10 years. In the article they said it would unfair to put someone as pretty as her in jail because she would be abused?