EFFECTS OF OFFENDERS’ PHYSICAL ATTRACTION AND SEX ON THE SEVERITY OF SENTENCING DECISIONS UMUKORO, Omonigho S. and EGWUONU, Davis I. Department of Psychology University of Ibadan ABSTRACT This study investigated the effect of offenders’ physical attractiveness and sex on sentencing decisions. Previous studies from various authors often showed a lot of inconsistency in the outcomes highlighting the impact of physical attraction and sex of offenders. Most of these inconsistencies have been attributed to the nature of crime. This study adopted an experimental design using in which data was collected from 48 participants. The participants of the study were mock judges, each of whom passed sentencing decisions on 4 hypothetical offenders. Four hypotheses were developed from the literature review and tested using ANOVA and t-tests. The results indicated that both offenders’ sex and physical attraction had main effects on severity of sentencing decision of judges at [F(1, 189) =26.861; P<.01] and [F(1, 4189)=147.494; P<.01) respectively. However, offenders’ sex and physical attraction had no interaction effect on severity of sentencing decision of judges at [F(3, 189) =1.011; P>.05]. Judges’ sex did not have any significant influence on the severity of sent encing given to offenders at t(46)=.029, p>.05. By implication, offenders could also use their physical appearance and gender to sway judges to give favourable judgments and sentencing. Therefore, hiding behind physical attributes could lead to errors in verdicts and wrongful convictions with the real perpetrators going unpunished. It was thus recommended that appropriate checks and balances be put in place to cater for the subjectivity and bias involved in sentencing decisions. Directions for future studies were highlighted. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY Depending on the legal structure of the judiciary of a state, sentences after trials are made either by a jury or a judge. In Nigeria however, sentencing decisions are usually made by a judge. But the issue of subjectivity and bias cannot be totally ruled out in sentencing decisions. Various factors contribute in influencing sentencing decisions ranging from objective to subjective factors. The determinants of sentencing are of much interest in criminal justice and legal research. Understanding the determinants of sentencing decisions is important for ensuring transparent, consistent, and justifiable sentencing practice that adheres to the goals of sentencing, such as the punishment, rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation of the offender, as well as reparation for the victim. Physical attraction plays a significant role in many areas of everyday life whether people realize it or not. The mentality that “what is beautiful is good” permeates societies around the globe, creating a “premium to beauty” in everyday transactions (Dion, Berscheid & Walster, 1972). Attractive people are credited with a wide range of positive attributions, being perceived as favorable, successful, assertive, happier, and possessing a greater likelihood for marital success (Wilson, 2003). Although different levels of attraction elicit different social perceptions, exchanges, and behaviors, research shows that attractive people are usually associated with positivity, whereas unattractive people are usually associated with negativity. Society has greatly disadvantaged those who lack a physically attractive exterior, from early childhood throughout life (Higgins, Heath & Grannemann, 2007). Observers attribute positive characteristics to physically attractive individuals. Usually, attractiveness is associated with more favorable qualities and better lives (better prospects for happy social and professional lives, finding an acceptable partner, and marrying earlier), which has lead to the belief that “what is beautiful is good.” Within the criminal justice system, research using mock jurors and court data has shown that, compared to unattractive defendants, attractive ones are less frequently convicted, less severely punished when they are convicted, and considered less responsible for the offense (Cahill, 2012). These effects have been replicated across many different types of crimes, such as murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, robbery, aggravated