Jury Decision Making: The Impact Of Attractiveness On Criminal Sentencing In Mock Jurors.
Abstract
This study expanded on previous research in the area of attractiveness to see if this aspect impacts on jury decision making and how they perceive the defendant by having the opportunity to answer questions based on how they would sentence the defendant. As there is enough research on attractiveness a hypothesis was developed as most research argues that this aspect can impact the jury’s decision making. The research found had led to the hypothesis that the defendant that has scored highest on the attractiveness scale will receive a lighter sentence, with a lower recidivism score and they will less likely to commit that crime again, whereas the defendant with a lower score on the attractiveness scale will receive the opposite.
The Impact of Effectiveness on Criminal Sentencing in Mock Jurors
Individuals with more appealing physical looks are considered least likely to get involved in repeat crimes as compared to those considered less attractive. The present study builds on previous findings on attractiveness and investigates how jury’s decision-making is affected by the physical appeal of the suspect. This study involves images of four participants; two male and two female who are defendants in a burglary case. The participants will be grouped into two categories where one set will answer questions related to the attractive male and unattractive male while the other will be assigned to the attractive female and unattractive female. The study will be carried out through an online survey using the scenario of burglary. The nature of the study is quantitative research which will be done using the questionnaire tool combined with nominal and Likert scales.
This research seeks to investigate the extent to which the attractiveness of a defendant affects the decision-making of the jury and how participants view defendants in line with the crime committed. By using the mock jury, the research will provide insight into the jury decision making. A questionnaire will be distributed through an online survey to determine the perception of the public on defendants based on the crime committed. The results will be helpful in predicting the how the outcomes can affect decision-making by the jury. Furthermore, the results will show the results of the further questions relating to the offender to see if these are impacted by attractiveness too. Further insight into the research will be provided through extensive literature review.
Hypothesis
The defendant with the highest score on attractiveness will receive a lighter sentence and will have a lower recidivism score and are least likely to commit the crime in question again while a defendant with lower score on the attractiveness scale will receive a higher sentence.
Justification of the Research
Biases in jury decisions are reflected in the actions of mock juries. The decisions touch on the formal duty of dispensation of justice. Although those associated to the jury presumes that the individual will be objective, several biases including factors of defendant attractiveness inhibit the effectiveness of judicial officers in delivering justice. This study investigates the conduct of mock jurists with regard to the attractiveness of defendants. The results of this study will be helpful to understand the factors that affect the objectiveness of judicial officers in providing the essential service of administration of justice and enhance fairness in court processes.
Issues arising around the research
Previous studies have revealed that attractiveness of the defendant significantly influences the decisions of mock jurists. Consequently, many defendants fail to receive justice based on their appearance. This subjectivity goes against the principle of fairness in the dispensation of justice in law. Officers appointed to the jury are expected to demonstrate a high degree of objectiveness and carry out their duties objectively. Bias in decision making exposes defendants to unfair judgments and may lead to increased rates of crime in society. The mock jury is a representation of the court process where individuals determine the penalty of a defendant based on the evidence presented. When the jury depends on other factors other than materials and information presented as evidence, they risk passing adverse judgment on innocent individuals whilst setting free criminal elements on the basis of their appearance. The bias of the mock jury based on defendant’s physical features is a concerning observation and diminishes the formal role of the judiciary to facilitate justice for all.
Judgments on Attractiveness
Decision making can be done in relation on the condition of mens rea, especially in crimes that lead to injury to the other party. Mens rea is based on the concept of intention in the commission of crime. When individuals commit crimes with the intent including manslaughter or common assault, Mens rea is considered intentional (Taylor, Lui and Workman, 2018). However, individuals can engage in crime oblivious of the weight of the consequences due to lack of being precautious. Although the action may have the same consequences, the jury decision may be lessened based on the intention of the defendant. Jurors are therefore recommended to delay decision-making until they hear all sides of the evidence. Nonetheless, jurors often fail to pay attention to the kind of evidence presented in court but are rather guided by procedural concerns in making their judgments. On the attractiveness factor, physical and social appeal impacts on the judgement of the jury. However, the findings are not precise when it comes to factors like gender (Taylor, Lui and Workman, 2018). According to a study on various jury convictions, female offenders were found to receive lenient sentencing for such crimes as sexual, child abuse and theft (Taylor, Lui and Workman, 2018). Generally, male defendants received more stringent sentences for murder as they were adjudged less trustworthy. The perception if informed by the traditional view of males as more likely to engage in crime while women are considered criminals by ‘accident’ (Taylor, Lui and Workman, 2018). Both gender and attractiveness therefore influenced the perception of the jury when passing judgements.
Perspectives of Facial Connection to Criminal Activity
Judgements based on physical appearance of an individual is based on a cognitive process of non-verbal communication. Individuals easily draw information from an individual based on their facial appearance as this has been closely associated with their character. Historically, judgements about the character of individuals with regard to intelligence, sexual orientation and ability to commit crime have been accurate to some extents (Valla, Ceci and Williams, 2011). In addition, people could easily deduce the levels of intelligence in individuals based on their facial features. Studies about the connection between facial appearance and criminality were done by Cesare Lombroso and his investigations sought to establish a connection between genetics and criminal activity. Criminal behavior was associated with such features as large ears, flat nose and protruding jaws and individuals depicting such characters were subjected to sterilization in ancient Italian culture. Italians sterilized individuals in order to suppress criminal behavior based on the premise that criminal behavior was inborn. Lombroso also connected left-handed people with criminal behavior after many persons using the left hand were found in detention centers (Chirchiglia, Della Torre, Marotta and Lavano, 2016). However, several famous personalities in the world have been left-handed and this quality has largely been connected to genius. Such individuals include Leonardo Da Vinci, Aristotle and Mahatma Gandhi (Chirchiglia, Della Torre, Marotta and Lavano, 2016). The bias of mock jurists regarding the judgement of criminals based on appearance arises from the cognitive processing of information and has no connection with the evidence adduced.
Experiments about criminal behavior and appearance have yielded varied results. Whereas some judgements by participants connecting facial features and criminal activity have yielded results that close to reality, other experiments resulted in conflicting conclusions as predicted by Lombroso. Certain criminal acts like rape and other sexual offenses were found to be the most difficult to detect based on facial appearance. In a study done by Valla, Ceci and Williams, (2011), rapists were deemed more attractive that other criminal types. Rape is one of the serious crimes in law and failure to ascertain this characteristic may mean that it is not connected to genetic makeup if an individual. On the other hand, it may imply that relating facia appearance to criminal behavior is subjective and not connected to reality. Mock jurists who use this intuition to make judgements are therefore prone to error.
Empathy among the Jury
Jury judgements are determined by the empathy aspect connected to the attractiveness of the defendant. Jurists may consider the crime committed as a matter of accidents and may wish to offer the defendant another chance based on empathy. More often the decisions are based on the cultural identity of the defendant and based on these observations; jurors who are empathetic towards defendants are less likely to award severe penalties like death of life sentence. Such scenarios are common in countries like Australia and Canada that constitute a jury entirely comprised of individuals who are not experienced or professionals (Sjöberg, 2015). Countries whose juries comprise of both the non-experienced and professionals trained in law like Germany, Japan and Sweden are also likely to face biases defined by empathy. Empathy is distinguished from sympathy in the degree of respond to another person’s feelings; sympathy does not proceed beyond feelings and is largely a passive feeling. An empathetic person responds to the situation of another party through deliberate actions. In this regard, empathy is associated with such constructs as perspective taking, fantasy, empathic concern and personal distress. An empathetic person places himself in the situation of another psychologically and anticipates their reaction. Fantasy, on the other hand is an action of placing oneself in the psychological situation of fictional characters in books, film and other media. Empathic concern adopts feelings of concern for others and is closely associated with sympathy and connects with their misfortunes. Finally, personal distress identifies an individual with the self-oriented feelings and involves a high degree of nervousness in situations involving other people. Jurors who exhibit a high degree of empathy are highly likely to give less severe punishments in their judgments (Sjöberg, 2015). Such jurors often consider the defendant as a person in disadvantaged conditions like an abused childhood as a trigger to the crime committed. Furthermore, feelings of empathy are defined by imaginations that the defendant could be a member of the juror’s family (Sjöberg, 2015). In some instances, defendants who were considered innocent victims of the crime received empathy from the jury informed by the fact that they played no role in the crime (Sjöberg, 2015). Based on the ongoing discussion, aspects of empathy played a role in their biased decision-making of mock juries in addition to the perceived attractiveness of the defendant.
The decision-making process in the jury often leads to judgments based on extra-evidential factors. In most juries, deliberations among the participants determine the nature of the judgment delivered. Subgroups may emerge in the process of deliberations that may lead to a biased voting process. Members with objective views may not get the opportunity to express their views and this may lead to a biased judgement (Coon, 2018). Persons appearing g before the jury also determine their perception about the various cases before them. It is the duty of the witnesses to narrate the stories in such a manner as to communicate the critical details necessary for decision-making. The cultural aspects of communication between the defendants and members of the jury may also contribute to biases in judgment (Coon, 2018). Defendants may avoid eye-contact with members of the jury due to upbringing where the jury may interpret the gesture as lack of confidence or insincerity (Coon, 2018). Defendants must strive to communicate every aspect of the story to the jury as a basis for any equal decision making.
Psychology of Mock Jurists
The decisions of the mock juries have been connected to the psychology of reasoning perception, stereotyping and group behaviour. Although the judicial system confers immense power on citizens for self-governance (Bornstein and Greene, 2011). The composition of the members exposes the system to inherent biases. Several of the selected jurists are less trained and prepared to handle complex matters and are often led by subjective feelings of sympathy rather than professionalism. From the psychological point of view, the human mind is subject to error and in this regard, it is common for non-experienced members of the jury to make mistakes in judgement (Bornstein and Greene, 2011). The difficulty experienced by jurors in making court decisions informs their inability to synthesise the information for the purpose of making judgments. Generally, people make decisions based on stereotyping that are subject to error. Consequently, such individuals are incapable of classifying their knowledge (Bornstein and Greene, 2011). Jurors often process the information they obtain from defendants and interpret it for the purposes of making decisions. It is noteworthy that these individuals do not only depend on the noticeable and apparent messages but their decisions are also informed by other irrelevant suggestions like appearance of the individuals and their perceived credibility (Bornstein and Greene, 2011). The cognitive in the minds of non-experienced jurists often leads them to subjective decision making based on additional indications communicated by the respondents.
Other Biases
The decision-making process in mock juries is largely determined by subjective factors. The members of the United States Jury must fulfill certain conditions of age qualifications and nationalism to participate in this process. However, these factors are not deterrent enough to protect the members from inherent biases. The bias is enhanced further in countries that appoint lay persons to the jury. Attractiveness of the defendants is a known factor in influencing the jury’s judgement. Attractive persons are considered more honest, and less likely to commit a crime. For this reason, the justice system has favored pleasant looking people depicting such features as a desirable body shape. Nonetheless other factors like racial discrimination, the age of the defendant and gender often influence the subjectivity of mock jurists in passing judgement. Other than the gender of the defendant, female jurists often pass harsher penalties on female defendants for such crimes as sexual offenses. Making decisions on judgements in the jury is a complex process that cannot be explained on physical attractiveness alone. Although physical appeal plays a major role in the subjective decision making among mock jurists, other factors including race, gender and age of the defendants significantly influence jury decisions.
Theoretical Implications
Appointment of an individual to the jury presumes that they will apply objectivity to deliver just judgments. However, it cans inherent biases which can cause them to consider external factors in concluding at the decisions that are or have been made. It has been observed that the jury often hand shorter terms to female offenders and favours older defendants compared to the younger individuals (Purnell, 2016). Such decisions stem from the thinking that older people are less harmful to society and that crime can diminish as the individual ages. Consequently, members of the jury do not approach the exercise with a blank slate as expected but reveal the countless biases present in society (Purnell, 2016). Attractiveness plays a critical role in passing judgments based on an individual’s physical features including cuteness, sexiness and symmetry and other desirable characteristics. Attractive people are deemed more kind, emotionally stable and honest. The p.erception of beauty is influenced by culture and female offenders are considered less in control of their actions. This perception often influences the award of stricter penalties for those offenders (Yamamoto and Maeder, 2017). Consequently, attractive persons are favoured by the justice system. The gender bias in mock jury decisions reveal factors beyond attractiveness. Dynamics of masculinity and femininity influence society’s perception towards crime. The gender of the jurors also determines the nature of judgment delivered based on the crime in question. Female jurors are therefore harsher towards female defendants in cases involving child abuse and sexual assault (Maeder, McManus, Yamamoto and McLaughlin, 2018). Gender does not only influence biases connected to attractiveness but also includes the stereotypes of the jurists.
Implications
The decision-making process in mock juries is largely determined by subjective factors. The members of the United States Jury must fulfil certain conditions of age qualifications and nationalism to participate in this formal exercise. However, these factors are not deterrent enough to protect the members from natural biases. Attractiveness of the defendants is a known factor in influencing the jury’s judgement. Attractive individuals are considered more honest, and less likely to commit a crime. For this reason, the justice system has favoured the more attractive looking people portraying such features as a desirable body shape. Nonetheless other factors like racial discrimination, the age of the defendant and gender can influence the individuality of mock jurists in passing judgement and frustrate the justice system. Other than the gender of the defendant, the action of female jurists to pass harsher penalties on female defendants for such crimes as sexual offenses diminishes the administration of justice. Making decisions on judgements in the jury is a complex process and must be based on objectivity and professionalism. Increased biases in the award of penalties as demonstrated among the mock jury threaten to diminish the role of judicial officers as representatives of justice.
Method
Design
This study employed by infernal statistics quantitative methods, utilising quantitative scales which were Likert scales to gather the data that was needed. This study was an independent measures design, which is also known as between groups. Different participants were used in each condition of the independent variable. This was done by random allocation, which ensured that each participant had an equal chance of being assigned to one group or the other.
This study had one independent variable, which consisted of 2 variables of male and female. The study had 4 dependent variables, which were the attractiveness of the offender, the sentencing, the deservedness of the sentencing and perceived recidivism.
The variables had been controlled expect the variable being manipulated, which is the independent variable. The effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable are collected and analysed for a relationship. Whilst this approach was taken to analyse the quantitative data, a Manny-Whitney U test was carried out for each of the dependent variables. This was non-parametric analyses was appropriate as it is used to compare two sample means that come from the same population, and used to test whether two sample means are equal or not. The Mann-Whitney U test was also chosen as the assumption checks of the t-test were not met.
Participants
Different participants were used for this study, there were 116 of participants. This number was chosen because 100 are the standard numbers used by similar studies. There were an equal amount of participants in each condition, 58 in each. All participants voluntarily consented to participate in the study; participants had to be 18 and over, as the study was completely anonymous age ranges can not be concluded. I had ensured both anonymity and confidentiality to the participants as they will not be required to include any identifying or demographic information such as their name as part of the experimental data; no such information was needed for my study. I had informed participants that they would be allocated with a unique participant reference number as I was collecting data entirely anonymous. Furthermore, participants had been informed that their data will not be identifiable.
Participants included those who were undergraduate psychology students from the University of Worcester. Participants who were psychology students were recruited via the psychology research participation scheme, whereby participants received credits for taking part in this study. However, majority of the participants who took part in the study were taken from an opportunistic sample which had recruited members of the public, another method used to recruit participants was via social media. To advertise my study I had set up a separate profile page that is dedicated solely to the study I am conducting, it was then deleted once I had recruited the participants and once the study had finally been completed.
Materials
A questionnaire method was used to collect the data needed for this study. The reliability of using questionnaires is that each time it has been completed, similar results should be obtained. A questionnaire is said to be reliable if the same/similar results are answered repeatedly. However, it cannot be calculated exactly, it can be measured by correlation coefficients. The reliability is measured in aspects of stability, internal consistency and equivalence. The validity of using questionnaires can be done by undergoing a validation process, so, this is done to show that it accurately measures what it is supposed to, regardless of who responds, when they respond, and to when self-administrated. Also, it reduces biases and ambiguities, gives it a better quality of data and credible information. A valid questionnaire is always reliable.
Procedure
Participants once assigned to the study online had been introduced to the participant information sheet (see Appendix ‘ ’). The information sheet involved letting the participants learn more about the study they are taking part in. Along with this it provided my university details and other important contact details if the participant wished to speak to someone else other than me.
This was followed by an informed consent sheet where they would select either answer of yes or no (see Appendix ‘ ’). The consent form which involved including the consent statements used on the consent form as the first set of questions that need to be completed on the online questionnaire. Once they had agreed yes to all questions they were then taken to the study where the scenario for the study had been given for them to read, followed by telling them what was required of them to do next (see Appendix ‘ ‘).
After the participants had read the scenario, they either received the attractive and unattractive female offender which appeared with questions below for them to answer (see Appendix ‘ ‘), or they received the attractive and unattractive male offender (see Appendix ‘ ‘). There were no time restrictions given for the study to be completed.
Finally, once they had completed the questions of the two offenders participants were then debriefed this included why the study was conducted and informing them about how research previously has indicated that attractiveness can impact jury decision making, they were then thanked for their participation (see Appendix ‘ ’).
Ethics
The research was approved by the University of Worcester, Institute of Health and Society Research Ethics Committee (see Appendix ‘ ‘) and the document of the process of the ethics was carried out in order for approval. These had been adhered to the BPS Code of Human Research Ethics (2014).
There were no perceived risks of this study, and no other ethical issues were involved. I had ensured both anonymity and confidentiality to the participants as they will not be required to include any identifying information. Furthermore, participants will be informed that their data will not be identifiable (see participant information sheet, Appendix ‘ ‘).
The confidentiality and storage of the data had been taken into careful consideration. The electronic data had been stored on a password-protected computer and a password-protected and encrypted memory stick for the duration of the project. All data will be securely retained for a period of a year after submission of the research project/dissertation to allow for potential publication of the findings. After this period of time all electronic copies of data will be securely destroyed and erased.
Results
A Mann-Whitney U test was performed on all 4 dependent variables, sentencing, deservedness, perceived recidivism and the attractiveness, to assess the hypothesis that the defendant with the highest score on attractiveness will receive a lighter sentence and will have a lower recidivism score and are least likely to commit the crime in question again while the defendant with lower score on the attractiveness scale will receive a higher sentence and so on. As a Mann-Whitney U test was conducted on all 4 variables for both the male and female condition 8 tests were done altogether. The male condition was analysed as one set of results and the female condition was analysed as another set of results. The results are as followed 116 participants were assigned randomly to each condition to complete the online questionnaire which included either the attractive male and unattractive male or the attractive female and unattractive female.
The study explores if the jury’s decision to sentence a suspected criminal is dependent on the male and female looks that is attractive and unattractive. The analysis comprises of two sample sizes each of 58 respondents and categorised into the male offenders and female offender’s questionnaire.
Part 1: Male Offender’s analysis
The analysis provided in this section is to evaluate if the sentencing of crime among male offender is dependent on the physical appearance of the individual. The variables investigated in this part of the analysis include the following; sentencing decision, deservedness for a sentence, perceived recidivism and attractiveness. The sample size for the analysis is 58 respondents. The hypothesis for investigation for this part of the analysis includes the following;
- Null hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference between attractive and unattractive male sentencing
- Alternative hypothesis 1: There is a significant difference between attractive and unattractive male sentencing
- Null hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference in the level of deservedness in the sentencing of attractive and unattractive suspected criminals.
- Alternative hypothesis 2: There is a significant difference in the level of deservedness in the sentencing among attractive and unattractive suspected male criminals
- Null hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference in perceived recidivism in the sentencing of attractive and unattractive suspected male criminals
- Alternative hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference in perceived recidivism in the sentencing of attractive and unattractive suspected male criminals.
Table 1.0
Test for normality for sentencing, deservedness, perceived recidivism and attractiveness for male offenders for female offenders
| Tests of Normality | ||||||
| Kolmogorov-Smirnov | Shapiro-Wilk | |||||
| Statistic | df | Sig. | Statistic | df | Sig. | |
| Sentencing | .174 | 116 | .000 | .913 | 116 | .000 |
| Deservedness | .220 | 116 | .000 | .869 | 116 | .000 |
| Perceived recidivism | .136 | 116 | .000 | .913 | 116 | .000 |
| Attractiveness | .225 | 116 | .000 | .851 | 116 | .000 |
| a. Lilliefors Significance Correction | ||||||
Table 1.0 above shows the test for normality for the variables sentencing, deservedness, perceived and attractiveness. From the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality, the significance values are 0.000, thus the test is significant for all variables. It therefore means that the variables sentencing, deservedness, perceived and attractiveness are not normally distributed.
Table 1.1
Mann-Whitney U test for sentencing and attractiveness
| Ranks | ||||
| Attractive or Unattractive | N | Mean Rank | Sum of Ranks | |
| Sentencing | Unattractive | 29 | 67.64 | 3923.00 |
| Attractive | 29 | 49.36 | 2863.00 | |
| Total | 58 | |||
Table 1.1 shows the output summary for the Mann Whitney U test for sentencing and attractiveness. From the table, the mean rank for the sentencing unattractive offender is 67.64 and a sum rank of 3923, while that of sentencing of the attractive offender is 49.36 and a sum rank of 2863. Therefore, this shows that the attractive male offender was overall rated higher on the attractiveness scale in comparison to the unattractive male offender who had scored lower overall.
| Test Statistics 3.0 | |
| Sentencing | |
| Mann-Whitney U | 1152.000 |
| Wilcoxon W | 2863.000 |
| Z | -2.988 |
| Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) | .003 |
| a. Grouping Variable: Attractive or Unattractive | |
The Mann Whitney U value for the sentencing of the attractive and unattractive male offender is 1152 with a Z-score of -2.988. The significance value is 0.003 < p-value 0.05 thus the test is significant. Thus, this rejects the null hypothesis 1; therefore the conclusion now given is that there is a significant difference in the sentencing of the attractive and unattractive male offender.
Table 1.2
Mann-Whitney U test for sentencing and deservedness
| Ranks | ||||
| Attractive or Unattractive | N | Mean Rank | Sum of Ranks | |
| Deservedness | Unattractive | 29 | 66.73 | 3870.50 |
| Attractive | 29 | 50.27 | 2915.50 | |
| Total | 58 | |||
Table 1.2 shows the output summary for the Mann Whitney U test for deservedness in sentencing and attractiveness. From the table, the mean rank for deservedness in the sentencing of the unattractive male offender is 66.73 and a sum rank of 3870.50 while that of deservedness in the sentencing of the attractive male offender is 50.27 and a sum rank of 2915.50.
| Test Statistics 3.1 | |
| Deservedness | |
| Mann-Whitney U | 1204.500 |
| Wilcoxon W | 2915.500 |
| Z | -2.723 |
| Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) | .006 |
| a. Grouping Variable: Attractive or Unattractive | |
The Mann Whitney U value for deservedness in the sentencing of the attractive and unattractive male offender is 1204.500 with a Z-score of -2.723. The significance value is 0.006 < p-value 0.05 thus the test is significant. Thus this is rejecting the null hypothesis 2; therefore the conclusion that can be made is that there is a significant difference for deservedness in the sentencing of the attractive and the unattractive male offenders.
Table 1.3
Mann-Whitney U test for sentencing and perceived recidivism
| Ranks | ||||
| Attractive or Unattractive | N | Mean Rank | Sum of Ranks | |
| Perceived recidivism | Unattractive | 29 | 64.50 | 3741.00 |
| Attractive | 29 | 52.50 | 3045.00 | |
| Total | 58 | |||
Table 1.3 shows the output summary for the Mann Whitney U test for perceived recidivism in the sentencing of the attractive and unattractive male offender. From the table, the mean rank for perceived recidivism of the sentencing the unattractive male is 64.50 and a sum rank of 3741 while that for perceived recidivism of the sentencing the attractive male is 52.50 and a sum rank of 3045.
| Test Statistics 3.2 | |
| Perceived
recidivism |
|
| Mann-Whitney U | 1334.000 |
| Wilcoxon W | 3045.000 |
| Z | -1.946 |
| Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) | .052 |
| a. Grouping Variable: Attractive or Unattractive | |
The Mann Whitney U value for the perceived recidivism of sentencing the attractive and unattractive male offender is 1334 with a Z-score of -1.946. The significance value is 0.052 > p-value 0.05 thus the test is not significant. Thus, adopting the null hypothesis 3, therefore the conclusion that can be given is that there is no significant difference in the perceived recidivism in the sentencing of the attractive and unattractive male offender.
Table 1.4
Correlation between sentencing and attractiveness
| Correlations | ||||
| Sentencing | Attractiveness | |||
| Spearman’s rho | Sentencing | Correlation Coefficient | 1.000 | -.521** |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | . | .000 | ||
| N | 116 | 116 | ||
| Attractiveness | Correlation Coefficient | -.521** | 1.000 | |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | . | ||
| N | 116 | 116 | ||
| **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). | ||||
Table 1.4 shows a correlation matrix table for the sentencing and attractiveness. From the table, the significance value is recorded as 0.000 < p-value 0.05 thus the test is significant and thus leading to the conclusion that there is a significant relationship between sentencing and the physical appearance of both the male offenders on trials. The Spearman correlation value for the test is given as -0.521 thus suggesting a negative relationship between the two variables which are sentencing and the physical attractiveness of both the male offenders.
Table 1.5
Correlation between sentencing and deservedness
| Correlations | ||||
| Sentencing | Deservedness | |||
| Spearman’s rho | Sentencing | Correlation Coefficient | 1.000 | .675** |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | . | .000 | ||
| N | 116 | 116 | ||
| Deservedness | Correlation Coefficient | .675** | 1.000 | |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | . | ||
| N | 116 | 116 | ||
| **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). | ||||
Table 1.5 shows a correlation matrix table for the sentencing and the deservedness. From the table, the significance value is recorded as 0.000 < p-value 0.05 thus the test is significant and thus leading to the conclusion that there is a significant relationship between deservedness and sentencing for both the male offenders. The Spearman correlation value for the test is 0.675 thus suggesting a strong positive relationship between the two variables sentencing and deservedness.
Table 1.6
Correlation between sentencing and perceived recidivism
| Correlations | ||||
| Sentencing | Perceived .recidivism | |||
| Spearman’s rho | Sentencing | Correlation Coefficient | 1.000 | .495** |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | . | .000 | ||
| N | 116 | 116 | ||
| Perceived .recidivism | Correlation Coefficient | .495** | 1.000 | |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | . | ||
| N | 116 | 116 | ||
| **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). | ||||
Table 1.6 shows a correlation matrix table for the sentencing and perceived recidivism among men in trials. From the table, the significance value is recorded as 0.000 < p-value 0.05 thus the test is significant and thus leading to the conclusion that there is a significant relationship between sentencing and the perceived recidivism of suspected men in trials. The Spearman correlation value for the test is 0.495 thus suggesting a positive relationship between the two variables sentencing and the perceived recidivism for both of the male offenders.
Part 2: Female Offender’s Analysis
In this part of the analysis, the primary objective is to evaluate sentencing of the attractive and unattractive women on trials. The variables investigated in the study include sentencing, deservedness for a sentence, perceived recidivism and attractiveness. The sample size for the survey is 58 respondents. The analysis present in this research paper is for testing the following hypothesis:
- Null hypothesis 1: There are no significant differences in sentencing attractive and unattractive women in trials.
- Alternative hypothesis 2: There is a significant difference in the sentencing of attractive and unattractive women on trials.
- Null hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference in deservedness in the sentencing of attractive and unattractive women on trials.
- Alternative hypothesis 3: There is a significant difference in deservedness in the sentencing of attractive and unattractive women on trials.
- Null hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference in perceived recidivism in the sentencing of attractive and unattractive women on trials.
- Alternative hypothesis 3: There are significant differences in perceived recidivism in sentencing attractive and unattractive women on trials.
Table 2.0
Test for normality for sentencing, deservedness, perceived recidivism and attractiveness
| Tests of Normality | ||||||
| Kolmogorov-Smirnov | Shapiro-Wilk | |||||
| Statistic | df | Sig. | Statistic | df | Sig. | |
| Sentencing | .174 | 116 | .000 | .913 | 116 | .000 |
| Deservedness | .220 | 116 | .000 | .869 | 116 | .000 |
| Perceived .recidivism | .136 | 116 | .000 | .913 | 116 | .000 |
| Attractiveness | .225 | 116 | .000 | .851 | 116 | .000 |
| a. Lilliefors Significance Correction | ||||||
Table 2.0 above shows the test for normality for the variables sentencing, deservedness, perceived recidivism and attractiveness among women standing trials in court. From the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality the significance values given as 0.000, thus the test is significant for all variables. It therefore means that the variables sentencing, deservedness, perceived and attractiveness are not normally distributed.
Table 2.1
Mann Whitney U test for sentencing and attractiveness
| Ranks | ||||
| Attractive status | N | Mean Rank | Sum of Ranks | |
| Sentencing | Attractive | 29 | 68.84 | 3992.50 |
| Unattractive | 29 | 48.16 | 2793.50 | |
| Total | 58 | |||
Table 2.1 shows a Mann Whitney u test for sentencing for attractive and unattractive-suspected women in trials. The mean rank for sentencing the attractive female offender is 68.84 and a sum rank of 3992.50 while the mean rank for sentencing the unattractive female is 48.16 with a sum rank of 2793.50.
| Test Statistics 4.0 | |
| Sentencing | |
| Mann-Whitney U | 1082.500 |
| Wilcoxon W | 2793.500 |
| Z | -3.359 |
| Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) | .001 |
| a. Grouping Variable: Attractive status | |
The Mann Whitney U test is 1082.500 with a Z-score of -3.359. The two-tailed significance value for the test is 0.001 < p-value 0.05 thus the test is significant and it is therefore rejecting the null hypothesis 1. The conclusion, therefore, follows that there is a significant difference in the sentencing of the attractive and unattractive female offenders.
Table 2.2
Mann Whitney U test for sentencing and deservedness
| Ranks | ||||
| Attractive status | N | Mean Rank | Sum of Ranks | |
| Deservedness | Attractive | 29 | 67.09 | 3891.00 |
| Unattractive | 29 | 49.91 | 2895.00 | |
| Total | 58 | |||
Table 2.2 shows a Mann Whitney U test for deservedness in the sentencing of attractive and unattractive female offenders. The mean rank for deservedness in sentencing the attractive female offender is 67.09 and a sum rank of 3891.00 while the mean rank for deservedness in the sentencing of the unattractive female offender is 49.91 with a sum rank of 2895.
| Test Statistics 4.1 | |
| Deservedness | |
| Mann-Whitney U | 1184.000 |
| Wilcoxon W | 2895.000 |
| Z | -2.792 |
| Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) | .005 |
| a. Grouping Variable: Attractive status | |
The Mann Whitney U test is 1184 with a Z-score of -2.792. The two-tailed significance value for the test is 0.005 < p-value 0.05 thus the test is significant and is therefore rejecting the null hypothesis 2. The conclusion, therefore, follows that there is a significant difference in deservedness in the sentencing of the attractive and unattractive female offenders.
Table 2.3
Mann Whitney U test for sentencing and perceived recidivism
| Ranks | ||||
| Attractive status | N | Mean Rank | Sum of Ranks | |
| Perceived recidivism | Attractive | 29 | 69.38 | 4024.00 |
| Unattractive | 29 | 47.62 | 2762.00 | |
| Total | 58 | |||
Table 2.3 shows a Mann Whitney U test for perceived recidivism in the sentencing of the attractive and unattractive female offenders. The mean rank for perceived recidivism in sentencing attractive women in trials is 69.38 and a sum rank of 4024 while the mean rank for perceived recidivism in sentencing the unattractive female offender is 47.62 with a sum rank of 2762.
| Test Statistics 4.2 | |
| Perceived recidivism | |
| Mann-Whitney U | 1051.000 |
| Wilcoxon W | 2762.000 |
| Z | -3.521 |
| Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 |
| a. Grouping Variable: Attractive status | |
The Mann Whitney U test is 1051 with a Z-score of -3.521. The two-tailed significance value for the test is 0.000 < p-value 0.05 thus the test is significant and is therefore rejecting the null hypothesis 3. The conclusion, therefore, follows that there is a significant difference in perceived recidivism in the sentencing of the attractive and unattractive female offenders.
Table 2.4
Correlations between sentencing and attractiveness
| Correlations | ||||
| Sentencing | Attractiveness | |||
| Spearman’s rho | Sentencing | Correlation Coefficient | 1.000 | -.521** |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | . | .000 | ||
| N | 116 | 116 | ||
| Attractiveness | Correlation Coefficient | -.521** | 1.000 | |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | . | ||
| N | 116 | 116 | ||
| **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). | ||||
Table 2.4 shows a correlation matrix for sentencing and attractiveness among women on trials in court. From the analysis, the two-tailed significance value for the test is 0.000 < p-value 0.05 thus the test is significant. The Spearman’s correlation value is -0.521 thus indicating a strong negative relationship between sentencing and the attractiveness amongst females on trials.
Table 2.5
Correlations between sentencing and deservedness
| Correlations | ||||
| Sentencing | Deservedness | |||
| Spearman’s rho | Sentencing | Correlation Coefficient | 1.000 | .675** |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | . | .000 | ||
| N | 116 | 116 | ||
| Deservedness | Correlation Coefficient | .675** | 1.000 | |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | . | ||
| N | 116 | 116 | ||
| **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). | ||||
Table 2.5 shows a correlation matrix for sentencing and deservedness among women on trials in court. From the analysis, the two-tailed significance value for the test is 0.000 < p-value 0.05 thus the test is significant. The Spearman’s correlation value is 0.675 thus indicating a strong positive relationship between sentencing and deservedness amongst the attractive and unattractive female offenders.
Table 2.6
Correlations between sentencing and perceived recidivism
| Correlations | ||||
| Sentencing | Perceived recidivism | |||
| Spearman’s rho | Sentencing | Correlation Coefficient | 1.000 | .495** |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | . | .000 | ||
| N | 116 | 116 | ||
| Perceived recidivism | Correlation Coefficient | .495** | 1.000 | |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | .000 | . | ||
| N | 116 | 116 | ||
| **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). | ||||
Table 2.6 shows a correlation matrix in sentencing and perceived recidivism for both attractive and unattractive females. From the analysis, the two-tailed significance value for the test is 0.000 < p-value 0.05 thus the test is significant. The Spearman’s correlation value is 0.495 thus indicating a positive relationship between sentencing and perceived recidivism amongst the attractive and unattractive female offenders.