In a test of the hypotheses that (1) defendants who have high external justification for their behavior would be sentenced less severely than defendants with low external justification and (2) an attractive defendant with low external justification would be sentenced more severely than an unattractive defendant, 60 college students were randomly assigned to one of four groups generated by two types of defendant descriptions (attractive vs. unattractive) and by two levels of defendant external justification (high vs. low, i.e., unspecified). Analyses of the sentences indicated that those defendants who had high external justification were treated more leniently. Attractive defendants were sentenced more severely when external justification was high. The results also indicate that, when sanctioning, subject jurors took into account environmental factors that may have contributed to the defendant's behavior. Although defendants with a high external justification were seen as having more justification for committing the crime (such as those who would embezzle money to pay spouses' medical expenses), they were perceived as equally responsible and equally as guilty. Despite this, they were sentenced more leniently. It must be noted that jurors in this study made individual judgements and did not discuss case materials with fellow jurors. Because deliberation may influence juror decisions, the results of the present study should be only cautiously generalized. Tabular data and six references are appended. (Author abstract modified)