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.     

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。     

Alcohol and Drug Mitigation in Capital Murder Trials: Implications for Sentencing Decisions

Analyses of the impact on sentencing when alcohol and drug‐related mitigation is used in the sentencing phases of capital murder trials is virtually absent from the existing literature. The present study addresses this by exploring the effect of having mitigation with alcohol and drug themes accepted in a large sample (n = 804) of capital murder trials in North Carolina. Logistic regression analyses that include a number of relevant control variables reveal no substantive impacts of having alcohol mitigation accepted by capital murder juries, but drug mitigators that were either accepted or rejected by juries were associated with an increased risk of receiving a death sentence. Possible reasons for the results and their implications are discussed and suggestions are made for further study of the effects of alcohol/drug mitigation in capital trials.     

Predictions of Future Dangerousness in Capital Murder Trials: Is It Time to “Disinvent the Wheel?”

Although recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the death penalty (e.g., Atkins v. Virginia, 2002) have renewed interest in mental health issues, one topic that has not received much attention recently is the ongoing use of expert testimony to support claims that defendants represent a continuing threat to society. In this article, we (a) review prior research relevant to determining the accuracy of clinical predictions that capital defendants will commit future acts of criminal violence; (b) summarize new data from current and former death row inmates in Texas that bolster the claim that such predictions are gross overestimates of risk; and (c) review extant research addressing the potential utility of various risk assessment instruments that increasingly are being used to reinforce clinical predictions in capital trials. Despite significant recent advances in the field of risk assessment, clinical assertions that a defendant is likely to commit future violent acts appear to be highly inaccurate and ethically questionable at best. Moreover, available research offers little support for the claim that the accuracy of these predictions will be appreciably improved by relying on more structured risk assessment measures that have some demonstrated predictive validity in other contexts.Portions of this article were written while the first author was a member of the Department of Psychology at Sam Houston State University. The prison inmate data reported in this study also are described in a report by the Texas Defender Service, available at:     

林诉亚利桑那州案与美国的死刑陪审团制度

林诉亚利桑那州案是美国死刑量刑制度中一个具有里程碑意义的重要判例,自该案之后,美国联邦最高法院确立了陪审团在量刑中的无可替代的法律地位,即量刑中加重情节必须由陪审团而不是法官加以认定。该案的背景情况以及法律争议在美国死刑程序中极具代表性,对法官独立量刑州以及混合程序州均产生了重大影响,立法机构也作出了积极的回应,其深远的影响将极大地改变美国死刑制度的未来发展。     

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.     

What Executioners Can—and Cannot—Teach Us About the Death Penalty

Those who work with the condemned often come to reject the death penalty not only in individual cases, and not only on the ground that it is poorly implemented. They tend to conclude that the punishment is wrong. I argue that the perspective of the executioner helps illuminate the debate about whether to abolish capital punishment, and that indeed the perspective of those who work with the condemned raises the troubling possibility that support for the death penalty can survive only at a great remove. Jeffrie Murphy has also argued that the executioner’s perspective can be useful, but I contend that Murphy asks the wrong question. His essay considers whether an executioner may, under some circumstances, take pride in his work. The better question is whether anyone ought to be asked to do such work. On this latter question, the perspective of the executioner sheds important light. Like Murphy, I draw on works by and about Albert Pierrepoint, the “last hangman” of Britain. I also draw on the perspectives of numerous executioners, wardens, chaplains, and other death row personnel. I argue that their perspectives offer a powerful argument against the main rationale for the death penalty: retribution. If retribution is keyed to the offender’s character as well as his wrongful act, then post-conviction character ought to matter. The executioners’ accounts share a common theme: that death row inmates change over time and hold the potential for redemption.