As a career Prosecutor, I’ve heard it for decades from the jury box as both sides try to select fair and impartial jurors: “He looks guilty.” Or when hearing accusations, “I knew it! He sure looks like a (fill in the blank).” Such statements differ from assumptions about police procedure, such as the belief that anyone arrested “must be guilty of something.” Conclusions based solely on the pre-trial appearance of a piece of evidence show that the propensity and biasand deeply concerned for all participants.
Appearance determination can kill
Beth B. Stevens and Heather Clayder-Offut (2026) in an article titled “When Looks Could Kill” discussed the role of suspect appearances in legal outcomes. (i) Investigating the effect of “criminal type” and the defendant’s remorse on criminal penalties and leniency, they found that some defendants were eligible for parole. judgments and beliefs about recidivism.
Stevens and Clayder-Offut recognize that when looking at a face, perceivers form a first impression within 500-1000 milliseconds, often based on facial cues alone. These inferences remain stable over time and often become negative, especially with unfamiliar faces. They note that such judgments can influence decisions about the person seen, as research on the death penalty (citing Wilson & Rule, 2015) shows that inmates who were considered less credible were more likely to be sentenced to death, even when they were later acquitted.
Stevens and Clayder-Offut note that the so-called “criminal face effect” shows that criminal faces have smaller eyes, lower eyebrows, more prominent chins, and darker skin pigment (cited in Funk et al., 2017). They acknowledge that this bias can affect court outcomes because defendants have facial features that match stereotypes associated with crime they are considered more guilty and receive a harsher punishment.
Stevens and Clayder-Offutt also note that trait perceptions of higher criminality are associated with other forms of negative stereotyping, including harsher sentencing and eyewitness misidentification, and that faces rated higher in “criminal type” are more likely to appear, regardless of whether the suspect has actually committed a crime.
Criminal intent versus remorse
In the two studies they conducted, Stevens and Clayder-Offut found that the perception of criminality and remorse depends on the severity of the accused’s face, and that criminals with “criminal” signs still seem remorseful, although they note that this perception may depend on the type of crime, as well as the prediction of the crime. reoffending or parole decisions. In their study, they used the faces of young white men to separate the face effects of remorse and guilt from the effects of race, age, and face. sexalthough they note that previous studies have found links between these characteristics and negative courtroom biases that affect decision making.
It has a face
Stevens and Clayder-Offut found a relationship between facial features and perceived outcomes in the criminal justice system. In their first study, participants were exposed to pictures of faces that differed in the severity of traits that indicated criminal propensity or remorse. In a second study, participants saw pictures of faces that included both types of features and were paired with information about the type of crime committed. In both studies, participants indicated how likely they were to be paroled and how likely they believed the person would commit a similar crime in the future.
The results showed that the intensity of facial features influenced both outcomes. Stevens and Clayder-Offut reported that participants rated faces with stronger criminal characteristics as more likely to be paroled and more likely to commit crimes. Traits of remorse had the opposite effect. Regarding the combination of both expressions, they found that criminals who were similar to the crime could also feel remorse, but this perception depended on the type of crime committed, and also the sentencing participants were asked to make a prediction about reoffending or a decision about eligibility for parole.
More than meets the eye
Although Stevens and Clayder-Offut’s study found mixed results based on the interaction between facial features and knowledge of criminal background, the effect of gaze alone on judgment and decision-making is significant. Whether in the criminal justice system or in other areas of life, recognizing the tendency to jump to conclusions based on limited information can raise awareness of the need to get as much information as possible before reaching preconceived notions about other people that may affect their lives as well as ours.
