×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Justice Not As Blind As Previously Thought

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the too-pretty-for-jail dept.

Crime 256

NotSoHeavyD3 writes "I doubt this is much of a surprise but apparently Cornell University did a study that seems to show you're more likely to get convicted if you're ugly. From the article: 'According to a Cornell University study, unattractive defendants are 22 percent more likely to be convicted than good-looking ones. And the unattractive also get slapped with harsher sentences — an average of 22 months longer in prison.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

256 comments

Did they adjust for meth and crack use? (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256404)

Those will take a real toll on your looks. They also have a nasty tendency to turn people into thieves, prostitutes, and murderers. Also, being white trash will tend to age you about ten years, and it usually also comes with at least two or three DUI-on-an-ATV/public-intoxication/starting-a-fight-down-at-the-bar arrests.

Re:Did they adjust for meth and crack use? (4, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256486)

Yeah.

I mean, he may get an extra 6 months because of that big scar on his cheek, but that big scar on his cheek shows that he got into a knife fight at some point. Perhaps keeping individuals prone to that kind of behavior off the streets for a few extra months isn't exactly a bad thing.

Re:Did they adjust for meth and crack use? (3, Funny)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256622)

Yeah because theres no possibility someone caused it without any involvement from him.

Besides, how do you think some businessman with nice tan would compare to some overweight person who person who sits on computer all day long? Not looking good for us slashdotters.

You can get glassed any time (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257050)

Just glance at the wrong woman at the wrong time.

Having a facial scar does mean they were at the wrong place at the wrong time, beyond that you don't know crap.

 

Re:You can get glassed any time (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257098)

One can have statistical correlation which is neither necessary nor sufficient...

Re:Did they adjust for meth and crack use? (1)

davidshewitt (1552163) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257428)

I mean, he may get an extra 6 months because of that big scar on his cheek, but that big scar on his cheek shows that he got into a knife fight at some point. Perhaps keeping individuals prone to that kind of behavior off the streets for a few extra months isn't exactly a bad thing.

I disagree. What if the scar is from something else? What if someone broke into his home and he ended up in a knife fight while defending himself? You cannot make a judgement when you don't know the facts.

Re:Did they adjust for meth and crack use? (5, Informative)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256744)

According to TFA, the researchers used theoretical juries of undergrads, and merely swapped the photo associated with them. I haven't seen the photos myself, but researchers usually use a distribution of attractive or unattractive photos that don't include "disfigured in a bar fight" and "barely cognizant heroin addict."

Of course, being a theoretical study on paper does mean that real-world influences could be much lower... or higher. For example, any signs of remorse in the courtroom, performance on the stand, etc might be much more significant to the overall judgement process. Or maybe the juries take real courtroom activity more seriously. Or maybe undergrads all just need to get laid.

Re:Did they adjust for meth and crack use? (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257056)

According to TFA, the researchers used theoretical juries of undergrads, and merely swapped the photo associated with them.

No, it doesn't say that. It says,

They were then given case studies of defendants, complete with a photograph and profile, were read jury instructions and listened to the cases' closing arguments.

It never says if the photograph was real or fictitious. However, using the same case study with different pictures would point strongly toward this being a cause and not just a correlation.

Re:Did they adjust for meth and crack use? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32257182)

In reality beautiful people are more likely to have more money, which means they can probably afford better lawyers too. Humans (and not just humans) are suckers for beauty, such is life.

Re:Did they adjust for meth and crack use? (-1, Troll)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257360)

How DARE you question your scientific betters? Are you an accredited scientist in this narrow field? If so, then please provide references so that we can discredit you. If not, then butt the F out of the discussion. Scientists are inviolate and must not be questioned by lesser minds. If you choose to question a Scientist, then you lay yourself wide open to devastating, insulting attacks involving the Appeal To Authority argument.

yeah, well (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32256416)

Maybe they should have thought about that BEFORE being ugly...

Correlation is not causation (1, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256434)

Did anyone consider that the ugly may commit more crimes?

Re:Correlation is not causation (4, Funny)

DreamsAreOkToo (1414963) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256454)

Did anyone consider that the ugly may commit more crimes?

No, because typically politicians are not ugly.

Re:Correlation is not causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32257332)

One word: Waxman. I mean he's a decent person as politicians go, but were his constituents thinking that if they're going to elect somebody whose job is being a rat they might as well pick the guy that looks like one?

Re:Correlation is not causation (1)

yincrash (854885) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256456)

Even if they do (which I'm not sure of), I don't think that factors into this. I assume the percentages are based on respective party's amount of crime.

Re:Correlation is not causation (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32256510)

Read TFA please. The study was done with students at Cornell, who were asked to give their verdict after reading the closing arguments from the trial. The pictures of ugly and non-ugly people were inserted into these case studies, so that the same facts were presented as though they were about two different people.

The ugly might very well commit more crimes, but this study eliminates that as a confounding factor.

Re:Correlation is not causation (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32256650)

So what it really says is, 'Cornell students are more likely to punish you if you are ugly'.

Re:Correlation is not causation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32256746)

Exactly. This is not a representative sample.

Re:Correlation is not causation (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257042)

Though, generally (throughout the world), such samples include people who are disproportionally more likely to serve justice to others (and who are, ultimatelly, chosen by the societies to do so)

Slow down, cowboy (2, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257010)

The study was done with students at Cornell, who were asked to give their verdict after reading the closing arguments from the trial. The pictures of ugly and non-ugly people were inserted into these case studies, so that the same facts were presented as though they were about two different people.

The students read the closing arguments.

They were shown a picture of the "defendant."

They did not spend days or weeks in a courtroom. Listening to testimony. Viewing exhibits. Making their decision. They did not spend days or weeks observing the defendant - perhaps hearing him testify in his own defense.

Not everyone photographs well. "Ugly" is subjective. Body language matters. Speech matters.

The student may half the age of the average juror. With all that implies in experience and perspective. Does "ugly" have the same meaning to a combat vet as it does to an eighteen year old kid?

Re:Correlation is not causation (1, Interesting)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257108)

the methodology is so flawed I don't know where to start
- youngsters are likely much more sensitive to looks than more mature people. I know I changed that way.
- cutting the inputs down to case summary+photo emphasizes looks ... What a surprise ! May be not the same happens, or not to the same degree, when the accused actually moves, talks... and the photo is NOT the only "feeling" of him/her the jurors get ?
- maybe over the course of a trial, feelings take a back seat to facts ? I get a feeling the study was done with 1h per trial, no time to take a step back.
 

Re:Correlation is not causation (4, Insightful)

Karganeth (1017580) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256526)

Nobody even fucking said that being ugly caused you to commit more crimes.

if i see another +5 insightful "correlation != causation" my brain is going to fucking explode.

Re:Correlation is not causation (1, Redundant)

Thyamine (531612) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256602)

Thank you. I hate that every report/study/survey that comes out gets this tag or someone gets the +5 just as you said. We are all aware of this, but it does not always apply!

Someone could post a study 'finds putting hand in fire causes burns! and 5 minutes later someone will post the correlation!=causation tag regardless.

Re:Correlation is not causation (1)

Naturalis Philosopho (1160697) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257424)

Hey, anybody notice that a lot of people are going on about the people who post about "correlation is not causation"? I wonder if there's a reason that's happening or if it's just coincidence...

Re:Correlation is not causation (4, Insightful)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256632)

if i see another +5 insightful "correlation != causation" my brain is going to fucking explode.

correlation != causation c'mon guys. Mod me up. You know you want to see it, too.

Re:Correlation is not causation (1)

schon (31600) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256658)

Nobody even fucking said that being ugly caused you to commit more crimes.

Wrong. Hatta did (well, he implied it by asking a leading question.)

if i see another +5 insightful "correlation != causation" my brain is going to fucking explode.

Methinks you need a software upgrade. Maybe this [slashdot.org] might help you. :)

Re:Correlation is not causation (5, Funny)

bigdavex (155746) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256704)

if i see another +5 insightful "correlation != causation" my brain is going to fucking explode.

OK, but how do we know that your brain exploding isn't causing these posts to be moderated highly?

Re:Correlation is not causation (1)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256730)

Agreed, and on top of this, the research in question was a designed experiment with control & experimental groups, which does in fact establish causation. The Slashdot "correlation != causation" crowd is almost uniformly ignorant about what they're saying.

A quote from Neil A. Weiss, Introductory Statistics, 7E, p. 22: "In an *observational study*, researchers simply observe characteristics and take measurements, as in a sample survey. In a *designed experiment*, researchers impose treatments and controls and then observe characteristics and take measurements. Observational studies can only reveal _association_, whereas designed experiments can help establish _causation_."

Re:Correlation is not causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32256788)

It's interesting to watch the /. hive mind. You are correct, of course; that saying is getting VERY old now. However, though people will eventually stop writing it, the hive mind tends to remember these facts, and incorporate their meanings in future posts/arguments. (Witness the general change of opinion about pirating as an example.

Reading /. will (slowly) make you smarter!

Re:Correlation is not causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32257002)

Yes but does crime make you ugly? Does having good Karma make you more attractive and bad Karma make you a Troll? If true then we've got some butte ugly serial killers on Slashdot! Posting AC to protect my Karma. I can risk the Karma but I can't aford to loose what "looks" I've got.

Re:Correlation is not causation (1)

hrvatska (790627) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257048)

if i see another +5 insightful "correlation != causation" my brain is going to fucking explode.

Then you'd be really ugly. A judge would probably slap you with ten to life just for jaywalking.

Female teachers and students (0)

lemur3 (997863) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256448)

So is this the reason why we see so many female teachers going off so lightly when they have sex with student boys in comparison to their male colleagues ?

Re:Female teachers and students (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256508)

I'd be inclined to doubt it, I'm sure the sex of the offender plays an overwhelmingly greater role. It wouldn't at all surprise me if the hot ones get lighter sentences, though.

Re:Female teachers and students (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256618)

So is this the reason why we see so many female teachers going off so lightly when they have sex with student boys in comparison to their male colleagues ?

I don;t like seeing claims like this made without a shred of proof.

Show me the number of women charged. The number of men charged. The age of the boy or girl. The age of the teacher. Other aggravating or mitigating factors.

Re:Female teachers and students (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32257410)

"Show me the number of women charged. The number of men charged. The age of the boy or girl. The age of the teacher. Other aggravating or mitigating factors."

Also show us the addresses of all the women charged. We need to determine if they're especially attracted to young men or just generally "easy." For scientific purposes of course. I'm sure it will take a lot of testing given the number of subjects involved, but i'm willing to volunteer.

Re:Female teachers and students (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32256692)

Man.... I wish I had been a student at YOUR high school.

And this is why... (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256452)

The statues of justice are always blindfolded, not blind...

On the plus side, we could spend some time discussing phrenological theories of the "physiognomy of the criminal type" which are always amusing.

Re:And this is why... (2, Interesting)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257160)

The statues of justice are always blindfolded, not blind...

You know how blind people often wear sunglasses to hide their useless eyes? Guess hat they wore back before sunglasses were invented. Go on, guess...

Lemme be the first... (5, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256490)

Any time a study comes out, twelvity million Slashdotters start chanting "Correlation!=Causation". None actually read the article. In fact, most have their rant typed out long before the story hits slashdot, and simply cut and paste into the comment box.

So, in the interest of keeping up this fine tradition, I offer the following:

1) Ugly people are more likely to actually commit the crime. Makes sense. Pretty people are less likely to need to do a crime as they are more likely to get good employement.
2) Committing a crime MAKES you ugly. Far fetched? Maybe. But I am sure those stupid researchers who only get by on grant money never thought of such a thing.

Clearly, I a faceless Slashdotter am more capable of analyzing the situation without actually reading the article, or giving it more than 20 seconds of thought.

Can the rest of my Slashdot bretheren help support my contentions?

Re:Lemme be the first... (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256742)

Well...

The study consisted of 169 Cornell psychology undergraduates, who were classified as either rational or emotional decision-makers through an online survey. They were then given case studies of defendants, complete with a photograph and profile, were read jury instructions and listened to the cases' closing arguments.

In serious cases with strong evidence, there was little difference in the conviction rate between attractive and unattractive defendants. But in more minor cases, with ambiguous evidence, jurors were more biased toward the good-looking.

So the study was of 169 people who were classified by taking an online survey. They were then given mock juries.

Interesting point: what is attractive and unattractive? Were the mock-jury members ASKED if the defendant was unattractive? ...

Perhaps there is a correlation of attractive/unattractive-ness with other traits which were what the jury members were *actually* basing their decision on?

Seems to me that anytime you start saying people decided something because of X, you are stepping into a very, very big domain. I'm not sure 169 psychology undergraduates is much of a study in this area. Especially when coupled with such strongly backed things like online surveys and a mock trial...

Maybe they knew they were doing case studies? It's a lot easier to judge a person based on their looks when that person is actually just a 2D photograph than when that person is actually a live human being in front of you.

Re:Lemme be the first... (2, Funny)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256760)

Committing a crime MAKES you ugly.

Anyone who has ever played Fable knows this is true.

Re:Lemme be the first... (3, Insightful)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256848)

Agreed. I propose that Slashdot start scanning for people tagging stories with "correlation!=causation", and automatically insert "I'm a fucking moron!" into their signature line. Or the like.

Re:Lemme be the first... (1)

Coder4Life (1396697) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256852)

and judging by your signature, are you saying Ballmer would get convicted if charges came against him?

BAM! just turned it into a Microsoft Bashing thread!

Re:Lemme be the first... (1)

GeoSanDiego (703197) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256900)

And I offer this: Attractive people can get away with more and thus, since the risks are less, are more likely to commit crimes.

Re:Lemme be the first... (2, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257084)

Hilarious. You deliver a mild rant about people spouting off "correlation!=causation" without so much as reading the article to see if the researches took that into account, all the while your post makes it obvious that you yourself didn't so much as read the article and yet your get modded insightful and informative. Sometimes I think the mods don't even try.

The researchers didn't use real court room data, they created mock criminals, attaching different pictures to the same information about the case and compared the results from online volunteer juries. In other words, there are no actual criminals involved and both of your points are... well, pointless.

Re:Lemme be the first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32257384)

This is modded troll, but it's factually correct and the grand parent poster clearly didn't read the article.

Please let me also point out.... (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257150)

If we just posted an article on world hunger and/or world peace on slashdot, the problems would have been solved already 5 or so years ago. I trust everybody here with my life because I know everybody here reads the articles for me.

Re:Lemme be the first... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257194)

Any time a study comes out, twelvity million Slashdotters start chanting "Correlation!=Causation". None actually read the article.

Correlation!=Causation: they may have been chanting that even if they DID read the article. Or if there was no study talking about causations or correlations. In fact, I'm pretty sure some of them just wander the streets mumbling "correlation is not causation" when they're not online. I mean, I do.

Re:Lemme be the first... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32257224)

Not to mention that crimes are not random atomic datum particles. Just because person X and person Y both committed the same crime doesn't make the facts of the case equally compelling. Maybe X was clearly guilty and Y was not so clearly. Even if the stats are really unbalanced, probability says that's going to happen sometimes.

Well Duh! (5, Funny)

happy_place (632005) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256496)

Any movie or TeeVee show has shown this for years... there is a caveat, however...They can be good-looking and convicted if theyhave menacing music to accompany them...

Re:Well Duh! (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256616)

If real life were like a police procedural, the first and most obvious suspect would always be a red herring anyway.

Re:Well Duh! (1)

Silfax (1246468) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257066)

If real life were like a police procedural, the first and most obvious suspect would always be a red herring anyway.

Would that be Occam's dull razor?

Re:Well Duh! (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256904)

Actually, I wonder how much the fact that movies and TV shows tend to portray those who commit crimes as being ulgy has to do with the results of this study.

Re:Well Duh! (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257088)

You mean how much the fact(?) that people expect from movies and TV shows to portray those who commit crimes as being ulgy?

BAM said the lady. (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256502)

Next they'll be saying that poor people and minorities end up in jail more often.
And a lot of the times people are going BACK to jail, and it's probably hard to stay good-looking long in jail.
(Although eye of the beholder etc.)

Re:BAM said the lady. (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256976)

Well, that's how they coded it.

unattractive = Minorities and poor whitefolk
good-looking = rich white folk

/I keed //DNRTFA

But wait... (2, Interesting)

Kirin Fenrir (1001780) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256506)

If this is true, how'd Micheal Jackson keep getting off?!

Re:But wait... (4, Interesting)

weszz (710261) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256688)

because the FBI was also looking at him for terrorism, and they couldn't find anything on him either... which tells me he didn't do it, and was just not mentally developed in that area of his life that he saw nothing wrong in sleeping in the same bed as someone's kid.

from his upbringing I'm surprised any of them turned out to be well adjusted people.

Re:But wait... (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256978)

The other comments are better, but I'll toss money into the equation.

You have money, you don't get convicted unless you rely on something other than money, such as true innocence. Money is more reliable than true innocence.

Re:But wait... (4, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257392)

Because black people are convicted at a higher rate and Michael Jackson was white.

It's not that ugly people get harsher sentences... (1)

skelterjohn (1389343) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256530)

It's that jealous police officers like to arrest attractive innocent people.

Possible other factors (3, Insightful)

Improv (2467) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256534)

From an Ev Psych perspective, ugliness is a possible marker of some kind of degeneracy, and our negative reactions to the ugly are likely a gene-regulatory mechanism (conformity's hand - that thing in side of us that makes us think "FREAK" when we see people who can't walk correctly, who are missing limbs or deformed, etc - the whole attraction of "freak shows" in circuses was to engage this, although in modern times we aim for a more compassionate society and try not to engage or mention this anymore).

Judges, police, the boss considering promoting someone, they're all human, and unless they use some objective metrics as their primary means for choice, attractiveness will accidentally factor in.

Re:Possible other factors (1)

Kozz (7764) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257046)

From an Ev Psych perspective, ugliness is a possible marker of some kind of degeneracy,..

There's pictures spread all over the web of a guy who I believe had conviction(s?) for sexual assault. If you know the photos I'm talking about, they don't look like a real person. He appears to be very, very short, with an oversized head, crooked teeth and a completely bashed-in-looking face. Doesn't actually look real. Someone surely knows what I'm talking about and can post links.

Re:Possible other factors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32257302)

Brian Peppers. First (and several following) google link for that name.

Ugliness and criminal disposition? (0)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256554)

Are ugly people more prone to criminal behavior? If so, it would be rational for, when the evidence isn't as heavily weighted in the direction of innocence, for a juror to infer a greater probability of wrongdoing, quite apart from considerations of fairness.

You're a statistical insanity. (1)

NNKK (218503) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256764)

It's talking about DEFENDANTS -- as in people already arrested and charged.

If police, prosecutors, judges, and juries were doing their jobs even close to right, and ugly people were just more likely to commit crimes, the arrest rate would be higher, but the conviction rate would not be significantly different from that of any other group.

Re:Ugliness and criminal disposition? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32256862)

Are ugly people more prone to criminal behavior?

That exact question is often spun around to "ugly people are more prone to criminal behavior" once it becomes accepted to classify those that don't look like you as ugly. I don't need to cite past and present events by name.

Don't worry... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32256584)

Ugly people don't get raped as much in prison. So really, those 22 extra months are just to balance things out.

Self esteem? (1, Interesting)

Vrallis (33290) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256588)

Isn't it just as likely that "ugly people" are more likely to have self esteem issues, which would lead to a higher proclivity towards committing crimes (thus more convictions) and the odds of those crimes being more heinous (leading to longer sentences)?

Re:Self esteem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32256700)

You either didn't read the article, or didn't understand what it said.

When I looked at the story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32256594)

There were 22 comments.

Rape Case (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32256596)

The judge would simply look at the defendant and rule, "Of course he is guilty of raping her. I mean, just look at him."

Well hang on a minute... (1)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#32256608)

...unless they controlled for likelihood of actual guilt (I don't know how) and severity of crimes brought to trial, all this tells is that justice may not be blind OR ugly people may be pre-disposed to criminal behavior and to commit more serious crimes.

Well, duh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32256670)

Everybody knows that stupid people with poor impulse control also tend to be ugly ;-) Come one, have you ever seen an attractive perp on Cops?

I believe it. (4, Insightful)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257022)

A woman at a grocery store near here was in charge of counting money from the tills and putting it in the safe. Over the course of a year she managed to steal over $100,000 in cash by doctoring the electronic sales records. The managers noticed, but she was too hot, so they routinely fired+blackballed the ugliest cashiers for stealing. Well, she finally got caught. The judge gave her a stern warning, no jail time, no probation. And she didn't have to pay back, she got to keep the $100,000. Judge even called her a wonderful person, said she has no chance of reoffending, and has a bright future as a university student and it would be wrong of him to get in the way of her! Left implied is that she gives good head, I guess.

I wish I was hot enough to steal 100 Gs and get to KEEP IT ALL with no other punishment.

Re:I believe it. (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257436)

I don't know the case but it might be that because the managers let her do the stealing (for whatever reason, maybe she was blackmailing, sharing the wealth, romantically involved or she had family ties), all the previous occurrences that were documented but not acted upon were dismissed. If you let somebody steal from you, you can't really expect them to be punished whenever it suits you - you actually have to document the occurrence, fire the person, notify the authorities and sue for damages. If you document but let it go on you might have (depending on your locality) implicitly given permission to those occurrences.

The last time when somebody actually went through the steps of firing her, they might not have sued for damages. According to your story she only got to criminal court, the lawyers pointed out that they let the other occurrences slide so implicitly allowed it, got a slap on the wrist because it was her 'first' offense for petty theft and maybe she has to do some community service or pay a fine. The company can still sue for damages if it's enough money but for whatever reason (cost of litigation maybe) they might not have - this is usually in another court (not criminal) though.

Throw money in the equation? (1)

SuperCharlie (1068072) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257156)

I would like to see a graph with ugly vs money on it... I bet you could be hella fugly with a stack of cash and beat the hell out of the sentences of the broke beautys.

What about the lawyer (3, Interesting)

codegen (103601) | more than 3 years ago | (#32257230)

The study let the fake jury read the case history and listen to taped closing arguments. However in a real trial, the lawyers are up in front and interacting. I wonder how much the lawyers physical attractiveness works into the equation. After all the defendant just sits at the table (unless he/whe takes the stand).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...