Life or death decisions

The penalty phase deliberation experiences of capital jurors guided by the “special issues” sentencing instructions were investigated. These instructions ask jurors to consider three specific issues to determine whether a defendant should receive a sentence of life imprisonment or the death penalty: whether the crime was committed deliberately; whether there is a probability that the defendant would pose a continuing threat to society; and whether the conduct of the defendant was unreasonable in light of any provocation on the part of the victim. In-depth interviews with 27 jurors explored the organization of the penalty deliberation, the topics discussed, influential factors in the decision-making process, the impact of sentencing instructions, the importance of the possibility of parole, and the stress associated with capital jury service. Jurors relied heavily on sentencing instructions to guide their deliberations and to determine their responsibilities. Future dangerousness and the possibility of parole were critical considerations in deciding between life and death. Although jurors found the capital trial to be stressful, most believed that the life or death decision should be made by jurors. Findings are discussed in light of constitutional concerns about the administration of the death penalty.     

Capital Jury Deliberation: Effects on Death Sentencing,Comprehension, and Discrimination

This study focused on whether and how deliberations affected the comprehension of capital penalty phase jury instructions and patterns of racially discriminatory death sentencing. Jury-eligible subjects were randomly assigned to view one of four versions of a simulated capital penalty trial in which the race of defendant (Black or White) and the race of victim (Black or White) were varied orthogonally. The participants provided their initial “straw” sentencing verdicts individually and then deliberated in simulated 4–7 person “juries.” Results indicated that deliberation created a punitive rather than lenient shift in the jurors’ death sentencing behavior, failed to improve characteristically poor instructional comprehension, did not reduce the tendency for jurors to misuse penalty phase evidence (especially, mitigation), and exacerbated the tendency among White mock jurors to sentence Black defendants to death more often than White defendants.     

Discrimination and Instructional Comprehension: Guided Discretion,Racial Bias,and the Death Penalty

This study links two previously unrelated lines of research: the lack of comprehension of capital penalty-phase jury instructions and discriminatory death sentencing. Jury-eligible subjects were randomly assigned to view one of four versions of a simulated capital penalty trial in which the race of defendant (Black or White) and the race of victim (Black or White) were varied orthogonally. Dependent measures included a sentencing verdict (life without the possibility of parole or the death penalty), ratings of penalty phase evidence, and a test of instructional comprehension. Results indicated that instructional comprehension was poor overall and that, although Black defendants were treated only slightly more punitively than White defendants in general, discriminatory effects were concentrated among participants whose comprehension was poorest. In addition, the use of penalty phase evidence differed as a function of race of defendant and whether the participant sentenced the defendant to life or death. The study suggest that racially biased and capricious death sentencing may be in part caused or exacerbated by the inability to comprehend penalty phase instructions.     

The Role of Mitigating Factors in Capital Sentencing Before and After McKoy v. North Carolina

In 1990, the United States Supreme Court ruled that capital jurors do not have to be unanimous in deciding whether or not to accept any particular mitigating circumstance presented to them by the defense during the penalty phase of a capital murder trial. This study examines whether this shift in procedure may have altered the role of mitigation in predicting capital sentencing outcomes by comparing death sentencing predictors before and after the McKoy decision with data from an extensive sample of capital cases in North Carolina tried between 1977 and 2002. The results indicate that (1) both the number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances accepted by capital jurors had statistically significant and substantial effects on capital sentencing outcomes both before and after the McKoy decision; (2) the number of mitigating circumstances presented to and accepted by capital juries in North Carolina doubled during the post‐McKoy period; and (3) the influence of mitigating circumstance on capital sentencing outcomes was attenuated in the post‐McKoy period. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Mapping the Racial Bias of the White Male Capital Juror: Jury Composition and the “Empathic Divide”

This article examines the nature of racial bias in the death sentencing process. After reviewing the various general explanations for the continued significance of race in capital cases, we report the results of an empirical study in which some aspects of racially biased death sentencing are examined in depth. Specifically, in a simulated capital penalty‐phase trial setting where participants were assigned to small group “juries” and given an opportunity to deliberate, white male jurors were significantly more likely to sentence black defendants to death than were women and nonwhite jurors. This racialized pattern was explained in part by the differential evaluation of the case facts and the perceptions of the defendant that were made by the white male jurors. We discuss these findings in light of social psychological theories of contemporary racism, and we conclude that the demonstrated bias in capital jury settings should be understood as an interaction of several factors, including individual juror characteristics, group‐level demographic composition, and group deliberation processes.     

Death penalty beliefs and jurors' responses to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials

Two studies explored the relationship between attitudes toward the death penalty and support for or rejection of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in a capital trial. Jurors serving on jury duty voluntarily completed questionnaires in the jury lounge. In Study 1, jurors strongly opposed to the death penalty were significantly more receptive to mitigating circumstances than were the remaining jurors. In Study 2, jurors who would have been excluded for their opposition to the death penalty under theWitherspoon standard were significantly less receptive to aggravating circumstances than were the other jurors. It is suggested that the present system of death qualification in capital cases results in biases against the interest of the defendant at all stages of the trial process—jury selection, determination of guilt, and sentencing.     

Emotion,Authority, and Death: (Raced) Negotiations in Mock Capital Jury Deliberations

This article explores the role of emotion in the capital penalty‐phase jury deliberations process. It is based on the qualitative analysis of data from ninety video‐recorded four to seven person simulated jury deliberations that examined the influence of race on death sentencing outcomes. The analysis explores when and how emotions are expressed, integrated into the jury's sentencing process, and deployed in penalty‐phase decision making. The findings offer critical new insights into the role that emotion plays in influencing these legal judgments by revealing how jurors strategically and explicitly employ emotion in the course of deliberation, both to support their own positions and neutralize or rebut the opposing positions of others. The findings also shed light on the various ways that white male capital jurors utilize a panoply of powerful emotion‐based tactics to sway others to their position in a manner that often contributes to racially biased outcomes.     

Tinkering with the Machinery of Death: An Analysis of Juror Decision-Making in Texas Death Penalty Trials During Two Statutory Eras

The Texas death penalty statute originally approved by the United States Supreme Court in Jurek v. Texas (1976) was legislatively amended as a result of the Court’s decision in Penry v. Lynaugh (1989). The changes were intended to focus on increasing jurors’ ability to give mitigating effect to evidence in sentencing. Using data from the Capital Jury Project, we compared juror comprehension of sentencing guidelines, punishment responsibility, and deliberations in sentencing among a sample of 123 Texas jurors who deliberated under the Jurek and Penry statutes. In each area, we found that the amended statute failed to guide capital juror decision-making as intended.     

The Attorney–Client Relationship in Capital Cases and Its Impact on Juror Receptivity to Mitigation Evidence

The United States Supreme Court has placed a great deal of trust in the ability and willingness of capital jurors to consider mitigation evidence during sentencing deliberations as a constitutional aspect of capital sentencing. This paper examines the jurors’ perception of the affective warmth and friendliness shared by attorney and client, and the degree to which the defense attorney appears to regard the defendant as a close working member of the defense team. Using data obtained from interviews with 725 jurors in capital trials, regression analysis revealed that respondents were more receptive to mitigation evidence when they viewed the relationship between the attorney and client as warm and friendly, but less receptive when they reported the attorney–client as having a close working relationship. Analysis of interaction terms revealed that the negative effects of the close working relationship can be suppressed by modeling a warm affective attorney–client relationship.     

美国死刑量刑程序的历史考察

美国死刑量刑程序经历了一个正当化的历史过程,早期的陪审团废法现象催生了死刑陪审团制度,死刑陪审团制度的建立又引发了死刑案件审判的两分式改革并使死刑量刑程序得以独立,特殊的"凌驾陪审团"规则体现出美国司法界力图保持死刑裁量中职业法官与平民陪审团间的权力制衡。     

Criminal defense and judicial sentencing in China's death penalty cases

Drawing upon 503 cases of violent and drug crimes involving the death penalty from three intermediate courts in China, this study explores various defense arguments, their acceptance rates, and factors that influence judicial sentencing. Our findings reveal that offenders’ post-crime good behaviors are most likely to be accepted by the court, thus helping offenders obtain suspended death penalty. In contrast, being charged with multiple violent crimes and the weight of narcotics in drug crimes are two significant factors related to an increased likelihood of receiving immediate death penalty. This article provides more empirical evidence about mitigating and aggravating circumstances considered in capital sentencing, and supports that private lawyers are not different from court appointed lawyers in China's capital defense. China's current system seemingly leaves little room for defense lawyers to make creative contributions.     

Clarifying Life and Death Matters: An Analysis of Instructional Comprehension and Penalty Phase Closing Arguments

We report the results of two studies designed as follow-ups to our earlier research on the comprehension of capital penalty instructions. In the first study we examine whether a California penalty instruction that was revised by the courts to improve its comprehension by jurors accomplishes this goal. In the second study we content-analyze a sample of attorney closing arguments that were given at the conclusion of actual capital penalty phases to explore whether they are likely to clarify those concepts and procedures that are so poorly comprehended in the judge's instructions. Results indicate that the revised instruction suffers from the same comprehension problems that plagued its predecessor and that attorney arguments appear unlikely to significantly reduce confusion among capital jurors.     

The United States Supreme Court and the death penalty: The struggle for fairness

In the ten years sinceFurman v. Georgia, the United States has recognized the right of states to adopt and follow different capital sentencing schemes so long as they protect the defendant from arbitrary and capricious imposing of the death sentence. The sentence may not be disproportionate to the crime. Sentencing may be done by a judge or jury. Prospective jurors may not be challenged for cause merely because their deliberations would be affected because a death penalty was possible, but only if they could not fulfill their oath. Habeas corpus petitions in capital cases are not open invitations to avoid finality of judgment and execution of the sentence, but are to find constitutional errors.     

Religious Characteristics and the Death Penalty

Using one mock trial scenario, this study investigated whether religious and demographic factors were related to death penalty attitudes and sentencing verdicts. Those who favored the death penalty differed from those who had doubts about the penalty in gender, affiliation, fundamentalism, evangelism, literal Biblical interpretism, beliefs about God’s attitudes toward murders, and perceptions of how their religious groups felt about the death penalty. These relationships generally held after mock jurors were death qualified. Gender, fundamentalism, literal interpretism, beliefs about God’s death penalty position, and perceptions of how one’s religious group felt about the death penalty predicted death penalty sentencing verdicts. Future research could determine whether using peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors based on religion can help lawyers choose a more favorable jury. The present research was supported by the National Science Foundation award number 0351811, the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, the American Psychology-Law Society, and the University of Nebraska Law-Psychology Program. This research was presented at the 2006 conference of the American Psychology-Law Society. The authors are grateful for the research assistance of Nick Fanning and Beth Herschlag and for the helpful comments from Brian Bornstein, Rich Wiener, Bob Schopp, Dick Dienstbier, and several anonymous reviewers.     

论绝对确定性和死刑

近年来死刑误判案件的披露引起了人们对如何减少此类错误的重新关注。因此，建议提高死刑案件中陪审团成员对被告人罪行确定性的研究者们一致呼吁适用高于排除合理怀疑的证明标准。本文在第二部分列举了一些当前论证死刑案件中可以适用排除合理怀疑证明标准的理论．并说明这些理论是否能证明死刑案件的定罪阶段和量刑阶均应适用更高证明标准。但因为死刑案件仍相对较少．所以误判死刑案件对正当性造成的整体损害小于每年误判数以千计的非死刑案件造成的损害：2002年仅有159人被判处死刑，但2000年有近925000名成年人在州法院被判处重罪，其中45000人在审判中被定罪（其余为自己认罪）。如果在死刑案件中要求真正的绝对确定性．那么可能会因为没有陪审团成员能真正声称自己有“绝对的确定性”而导致无人会被判处死刑。     

A HEAVY THUMB ON THE SCALE: THE EFFECT OF VICTIM IMPACT EVIDENCE ON CAPITAL DECISION MAKING*

The past several decades have seen the emergence of a movement in the criminal justice system that has called for a greater consideration for the rights of victims. One manifestation of this movement has been the “right” of victims or victims' families to speak to the sentencing body through what are called victim impact statements about the value of the victim and the full harm that the offender has created. Although victim impact statements have been a relatively noncontroversial part of regular criminal trials, their presence in capital cases has had a more contentious history. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned previous decisions and explicitly permitted victim impact testimony in capital cases in Payne v. Tennessee (1991) . The dissenters in that case argued that such evidence only would arouse the emotions of jurors and bias them in favor of imposing death. A body of research in behavioral economics on the “identifiable victim effect” and the “identifiable wrongdoer effect” would have supported such a view. Using a randomized controlled experiment with a death‐eligible sample of potential jurors and the videotape of an actual penalty trial in which victim impact evidence (VIE) was used, we found that these concerns about VIE are perhaps well placed. Subjects who viewed VIE testimony in the penalty phase were more likely to feel negative emotions like anger, hostility, and vengeance; were more likely to feel sympathy and empathy toward the victim; and were more likely to have favorable perceptions of the victim and victim's family as well as unfavorable perceptions of the offender. We found that these positive feelings toward the victim and family were in turn related to a heightened risk of them imposing the death penalty. We found evidence that part of the effect of VIE on the decision to impose death was mediated by emotions of sympathy and empathy. We think our findings open the door for future work to put together better the causal story that links VIE to an increased inclination to impose death as well as explore possible remedies.     

故意杀人罪的死刑裁量基准——“丁汉忠案”的文本梳理和法理审视

目前我国有关故意杀人罪中死刑裁量因素的审查难有真切、统一的基准,而在司法实践中对相关刑法条文含义的理解和阐释较为草率;最高人民法院的指导性案例体现的裁判趣旨未得到充分领会;各量刑因素的作用莫衷一是、标准不一,“估堆”量刑的困境萦绕其间,因而须探索故意杀人罪中相对合理的死刑裁量基准。具体而言,须区分各量刑因素的轻重、位阶,建构以责任刑为主、预防刑为辅的死刑裁量基准。至于是否入围死刑圈主要是仰仗责任刑阶段的判断。若责任刑阶段均是从严因素,基本会入围死刑圈的审查。死刑圈内的三种准刑种如何抉择,取决于对行为人的人身危险性判断。在预防刑阶段若均是从宽因素,一般死缓的判决即可满足要求;若从宽因素和从严因素交错,死缓限制减刑的判决基本可满足要求;若只有从严因素,则有判决死刑立即执行的可能。     

Getting to the Point: Attempting to Improve Juror Comprehension of Capital Penalty Phase Instructions

This research examined the effects of several versions of capital penalty phase instructions on juror comprehension. Study One documented the impact of California’s recently implemented “plain language” instruction. It showed that although the new instruction has clear advantages over the previous version, significant comprehension problems remain. Study Two evaluated several modified instructions designed to enhance comprehension. Participants heard either a standard patterned instruction or one of two alternatives—a psycholinguistically improved instruction, or a “pinpoint” instruction using case-related facts to illustrate key terms—in a simulated death penalty sentencing phase. Persons who heard modified instructions demonstrated higher levels of comprehension on virtually every measure as compared to those in the standard instruction condition.     

Life underWainwright v. Witt: Juror dispositions and death qualification

The current standard for determining juror qualification in cases in which the prosecution is seeking the death penalty was formulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1985 inWainwright v. Witt. This standard differs importantly from its predecessor, and requires that prospective jurors be dismissed if their views would prevent or substantially impair their ability to perform their functions as jurors. We assessed respondents according to the criteria imposed byWitt. We also measured independently prospective juror's abilities to perform the various specific tasks of a capital juror and their disposition to impose the death penalty automatically upon defendants convicted of murder punishable by death. Data from 148 respondents, selected randomly from juries on previously tried felony cases, indicated that 28.2% of those includable by theWitt standard would automatically impose the death penalty. Considering all respondents who would be erroneously included or excluded, a total of 36% of the sample showed inconsistencies with theWitt criterion. These findings are discussed in terms of jurors' difficulties in anticipating their roles as capital jurors.     

Race and Jurors' Receptivity to Mitigation in Capital Cases: The Effect of Jurors', Defendants', and Victims' Race in Combination

This paper examines the variation in receptivity to mitigation evidence by capital jurors as it varies by the race of the juror, defendant, and victim individually and in combination. Attitudinal and racial characteristics from 865 respondents in the Capital Jury Project were used in the analysis. Using a generalized form of multiple regression, the respondent's receptivity to mitigation evidence was predicted and changes in receptivity were calculated as the race of the main trial participants (juror, defendant, and victim) were varied. Statistical controls were put in place for gender of respondent; respondent's perception of the dangerousness of the defendant, heinousness of the crime, and view of the defense attorney; respondent's formation of a premature sentencing decision; and whether the trial took place in a southern state jurisdiction. Results indicate that Black jurors in cases where a Black is charged with killing a White victim are chiefly responsible for the observed variance in receptivity to mitigation.