Equity theory is concerned with the just distribution of outcomes in a social exchange relationship. Whenever two or more people enter into an exchange, they bring with them certain investments or inputs. These inputs are as varied as sex, age, socioeconomic background, education, job seniority, physical attractiveness, time and effort spent at a task, or quality of work performed. Whenever an individual experiences an inequitable relationship, he or she experiences distress and becomes motivated to restore equity to the situation. Based on this theory, defendants with attitudinal inputs similar to jurors should be treated more leniently than those attitudinally dissimilar. This hypothesis was confirmed in two 1973 studies. In addition, jurors are more lenient on a defendant who suffers an injury in the perpetration of an accident than one who does not. Hester and Smith found that a juror's willingness to acquit a defendant facing a possible death sentence hinges on the victim's inputs as well, e.g., whether the victim is a young child or a rival gang leader. In general, the more severe the outcome the defendant causes the victim to experience, the harsher the penalty jurors administer to the defendant. Characteristics of the perceiver (juror) are likely to play a part in determinations of equity and the kinds of outcomes dispensed to defendants. Thus, the juror acts as a third-party observer to an inequitable exchange between a defendant and a victim; the juror attempts to restore equity to the situation. One footnote and approximately 150 references are provided.