Support for life in prison without the possibility of parole among death penalty proponents

Past research provides a fairly consistent portrait of the death penalty supporter. However, when offered an alternative to death, such as life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP), support for the death penalty tends to diminish. Unfortunately, very little is known about death penalty proponents who support the LWOP option. This study compares death penalty supporters who favor the LWOP alternative with death penalty supporters who oppose this option. Income significantly influences LWOP opinions. The implications of these results and suggestions for further research are discussed. An earlier version of this paper was delivered at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences in Boston, MA.     

Negotiating Proximity: Expert Testimony and Collective Memory in the Trials of Environmental Activists in France and the United Kingdom

This article analyzes the role of expert witness testimony in the trials of social movement actors, discussing the trial of the “Kingsnorth Six” in Britain and the trials of activists currently mobilising against airport construction at Notre Dame des Landes in western France. Though the study of expert testimony has so far overwhelmingly concentrated on fact‐finding and admissibility, the cases here reveal the importance of expert testimony not simply in terms of legal argument, but in “moral” or political terms, as it reflects and constitutes movement cognitive praxis. In the so‐called climate change defence presented by the Kingsnorth Six, I argue that expert testimony attained a “negotiation of proximity,” connecting different types of contributory expertise to link the scales and registers of climate science with those of everyday understanding and meaning. Expert testimony in the trials of activists in France, however, whilst ostensibly able to develop similar bridging narratives, has instead been used to construct resistance to the airport siting as already proximate, material, and embedded. To explain this, I argue that attention to the symbolic, as well as instrumental, functions of expert testimony reveals the crucial role that collective memory plays in the construction of both knowledge and grievance in these cases. Collective memory is both a constraint on and catalyst for mobilisation, defining the boundaries of the sayable. Testimony in trials both reflects and reproduces these elements and is a vital explanatory tool for understanding the narrativisation and communication of movement identities and objectives.     

Two conjectures about the issue of expert testimony

This article responds to concerns about expert testimony in experimental psychology by conjectur that disagreements about the propriety of the testimony are camouflaged arguments about the strength of psychological knowledge. Differences between proponents and opponents of expert testimony are about the state of psychological knowledge and certainty, rather than about the proper standard for psychologists to use when deciding whether to testify. A second conjecture is stimulated by the assumption that laypersons generally overvalue eyewitness testimony and that expert psychological testimony is a required corrective. The truth of this assumption rests on the debatable assertions that eyewitness identifications, without more, are potent sole determinants of trial outcome, and that lay juries need instruction from experimental psychologists about aspects of human behavior of which the jurors are definitive producers and consumers. One need not resolve these debates in order to understand that psychologists should not rely on the legal community to set the psychologists' standards for expert testimony. And psychologists, in considering their role as courtroom experts, should guard against a self-serving critique of the acumen of lay juries.     

Death as a Penalty and the Fantasy of Instant Death

In this essay I take up the question of how death can be a penalty, given that each of us will eventually die. I argue that capital punishment in the United States rests on contradictory demands for painless death delivered humanely through pharmaceuticals and yet denies the accused the possibility of natural death. The death penalty must be at once humane and punishing. Analyzing what we mean by ‘botched’ executions, along with the language of the Supreme Court in upholding lethal injection as a humane application of the death penalty, I argue that the fantasy of instant death is at the heart of the tension between death as painless and death as penalty. In the end, I turn to Derrida’s Death Penalty Seminar Volume One, particularly his discussion of Kant’s defence of the capital punishment, and the pivotal role of time in his discussion. Finally, I suggest that the fantasies of instantaneous death and our technological mastery of it result in the fantasy of the ‘good’ punishing death.     

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN SENTENCING DEPARTURES ACROSS MODES OF CONVICTION*

Recent analyses of guideline sentencing practices have demonstrated that sentences departing from guidelines serve as a significant locus of racial/ethnic and other extralegal disparity. Little is known, however, about the ways that different courtroom processes, such as modes of conviction, condition these effects. Using recent data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS), I analyze the overall effects of race/ethnicity and other factors on judicial decisions to depart from the sentencing guidelines, and then I reexamine these relationships according to four modes of conviction (non‐negotiated pleas, negotiated pleas, bench trials, and jury trials). I argue that the mode of conviction provides a useful indicator of the differential exercise of discretion by different courtroom actors in the sentencing process. As such, it is likely to condition the use of stereotypical patterned responses, thus moderating the effects of race/ethnicity and other relevant sentencing factors. Findings support this expectation, demonstrating that extralegal effects vary considerably across modes of conviction. These results raise important questions about the role of different courtroom actors in contributing to racial and ethnic disparities under sentencing guidelines.     

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.     

Legal principles governing expert testimony by experimental psychologists

With increasing frequency, experimental psychologists are called upon to present their research findings and theories in a courtroom. This article reviews the general evidentiary standards regarding such expert testimony, with a specific emphasis on how those principles have been applied in the context of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identifications. A comprehensive review of the judicial decisions in this area reveals that there has recently been a significant shift in the courts' receptivity toward such testimony. Many courts now believe that psychological research on human perception and memory has progressed to the point that the expert's testimony may be considered both reliable enough and helpful enough to the jury to justify its adminssion in the appropriate case. The author concludes with a discussion of several developments that would help to allay the judicial system's historical concerns over the admission of such expert psychological testimony.     

Face-to-Face Confrontation: Effects of Closed-Circuit Technology on Children's Eyewitness Testimony and Jurors' Decisions

The present study was designed to examine effects of closed-circuit technology on children's testimony and jurors' perceptions of child witnesses. For the study, a series of elaborately staged mock trials was held. First, 5- to 6-year-old and 8- to 9-year-old children individually participated in a play session with an unfamiliar male confederate. Approximately 2 weeks later, children individually testified about the event at a downtown city courtroom. Mock juries composed of community recruits viewed the trials, with the child's testimony presented either live in open court or over closed-circuit television. Mock jurors made ratings concerning the child witness and the defendant, and deliberated to reach a verdict. Results indicated that overall, older children were more accurate witnesses than younger children. However, older, not younger children produced more inaccurate information in free recall. Compared to live testimony in open court, use of closed-circuit technology led to decreased suggestibility for younger children. Testifying in open court was also associated with children experiencing greater pretrial anxiety. Closed-circuit technology did not diminish factfinders' abilities to discriminate accurate from inaccurate child testimony, nor did it directly bias jurors against the defendant. However, closed-circuit testimony biased jurors against child witnesses. Moreover, jurors tended to base their impressions of witness credibility on perceived confidence and consistency. Implications for the use of closed- circuit technology when children testify are discussed.     

Confidence in the death penalty and support for its use: Exploring the value-expressive dimension of death penalty attitudes

Recent media and political attention has raised public awareness of a number of issues surrounding the death penalty. Questions regarding innocence, fair trials, and equitable access to counsel and the appellate process are ubiquitous in coverage of the death penalty. Adequate information about public attitudes toward the death penalty in light of these issues is currently lacking. In 2002, as part of the annual Texas Crime Poll, questions were asked about confidence in the administration of the death penalty, support for the death penalty, and support for a moratorium. The results indicate that, although a majority of respondents support the death penalty, a substantial proportion lack confidence in its use and support a moratorium on executions. Of those lacking confidence and those supporting a moratorium, strong majorities maintain support for the death penalty (68% and 73%, respectively). These findings suggest that death penalty attitudes may be largely value expressive.     

Restraint,Reaction, and Penal Fantasies: Notes on the Death Penalty in Israel, 1967–2016

What role does the death penalty play in contexts of protracted political violence? What does it symbolize for its opponents and proponents in such contexts? Can it survive as a potent topic of political life even without actual executions? Since 1967, the death penalty has been a lawful sanction in Israel's military courts, which have jurisdiction over Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. Though it has never been carried out, it has been intensely debated throughout this period and the topic has retained major political, cultural, and judicial significance. I argue that both sides in these debates use the topic mostly symbolically, rather than as an issue of public policy. For opponents, refraining from using the death penalty has become a symbol of restraint , used in self‐legitimation. For proponents, death penalty advocacy serves as what I term a penal fantasy , an outlet for frustration, symbolizing defiance against the image of restraint.     

Mastery Over the Time of the Other: The Death Penalty and Life in Prison Without Parole

Derrida’s seminar on the death penalty is a deconstructive reading of the debate over the abolition of the death penalty beginning in eighteenth century Europe. The main imperative of the reading is to address the limits of abolitionist discourses, which historically have been based on natural law conceptions of the right to life. Derrida’s interest in undertaking such a reading is to develop an abolitionist argument that would hold up in principle against the death penalty. However, in this paper I take Derrida’s insights into the meaning of the death penalty to explore what they reveal about political sovereignty, and in particular its relation to violence. The paper begins by addressing several relevant moments in Derrida’s reading of texts on both sides of the death penalty debate and shows how the arguments are each limited by some ‘unavowed’ interest that conditions the fundamental principles upon which they are based (Derrida, in Death penalty, Volume I. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p. 142; 2014). These unavowed interests relate to what Derrida describes as the ‘compromise’ on the question of cruelty in the context of the death penalty. Based on these readings, the paper develops a concept of the death penalty defined as a relation to time, specifically, a relation of mastery over the time of the life of the other. It then connects this concept to Derrida’s analysis of political sovereignty found in Rogues (2005) and ‘Force of Law’ (2002) to make two arguments. First, the conception of the death penalty as a relation to time redefines so-called ‘death penalty alternatives’, such as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as manifestations of the death penalty through other means; and, second, changes in the appearance of the death penalty reflect changes in the institution of political sovereignty, and in turn the status of the state.     

Jury decision making in the capital penalty phase

There are large bodies of research on the deterrent value of the death penalty and public attitudes towards capital punishment. However, little is known about how jurors decide whether a particular defendant should live or die. This article briefly summarizes the case law that attempts to guide the discretion of jurors in the penalty phase of capital murder trials, reviews empirical research on penalty decision making, suggests a methodological strategy for investigating the penalty phase, and identifies several promising directions for future research. Four broad categories of research are identified: the effects of guiding juror discretion, comparisons of juries that vote for life with those that vote for death, the relationship between guilt and penalty phases, and models of decision making in the penalty phase. Several testable hypotheses are proposed.     

Can information change public opinion? Another test of the Marshall hypotheses

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall offered his opinion regarding the utility of public opinion polls as a tool for assessing the “evolving standards of decency” regarding capital punishment. His arguments became known as the Marshall hypotheses and spawned a considerable body of empirical testing. The three Marshall hypotheses are: (1) support for capital punishment is inversely associated with knowledge about it, (2) exposure to information about capital punishment produces sentiments in opposition to capital punishment, but (3) exposure to information about capital punishment will have no impact on those who support it for retributive reasons. The results of previous tests of these hypotheses were somewhat mixed but supportive. None of these studies, however, examined the effects of change in knowledge levels with changes, if any, in death penalty attitudes and beliefs as needed for a more complete test of the Marshall hypotheses. The present study addressed this shortcoming. The results provided mixed support for these three hypotheses. That is, death penalty supporters were somewhat less informed than death penalty opponents; exposure to death penalty information and knowledge gains tended to be associated with attitudinal change in a directions suggested by these hypotheses; but, retributivists' attitudes toward and beliefs about capital punishment were not any more resistant to change than were the attitudes and beliefs of non-retributivists.     

An Examination of Social-Psychological Factors and Support for the Death Penalty: Attribution, Moral Disengagement, and the Value-Expressive Function of Attitudes

This study examines the social-psychological factors of attributional styles, moral disengagement, and the value-expressive function of attitudes in relation to death penalty support and the robustness of that support. Respondents were first asked whether or not they supported the death penalty and were then presented several paragraphs of information exposing flaws or failures in the death penalty and asked how compelling they found the information and whether it impacted their death penalty attitudes. Results suggest that attributional style has little if any effect on death penalty support and that only a few aspects of moral disengagement seem to play a role. Value-expressiveness, on the other hand, appears to play a critical role in death penalty attitudes and support. Our findings suggest that when support is based on value-expressive foundations, it is more robust and unlikely to wane regardless of information or knowledge indicating problems with the death penalty.     

In Pursuit of an Expert Identity: A Case Study of Experts in the Historical Courtroom

There are certain areas of study where present-day semiotics of law can learn from history. This study examines the discursive history and historical courtroom discourse of expert witnesses in eighteenth-century American court. The aim of the study is to explore the use of linguistic strategies and resources in constructing an expert identity in relation to the factors which influence those choices. Instead of taking expertise as being lodged in the pre-given label, such as a doctor, this article argues that such an identity has to be constructed and negotiated, and reveals how such an identity is constructed and negotiated through trial talk during a hostile discursive environment. The historical courtroom is an interesting site in this regard, as it was the period when expert witnesses did not enjoy the same social status as their present-day peers, which came with the absence of discursive privileges as well. It is found that experts mainly relied on expansions of response as the resources to counterbalance skeptical attitudes and hostile attempts aimed to undermine their testimony that accompanied their vulnerable status and image and to gain discursive control during the interaction.     

The Impact of the Rape/Sexual Assault Statutory Aggravating Factor on Death Sentencing Decision Making in Capital Murder Trials in North Carolina (1977–2009): A Propensity Score Matching Approach

It was not too many decades ago that rape was a crime for which the death penalty was a permissible punishment in the United States, particularly in death penalty states in the South. Relatedly, historical and contemporary death penalty research almost always focuses on the role of the race of the defendant and, more recently, the race of the victim and defendant–victim racial dyads as being relevant factors in death penalty decision making. As such, the current study employs data from official court records for the population of capital trials (n = 954) in the state of North Carolina (1977–2009) to evaluate the effect of the rape/sexual assault statutory aggravating factor on jurors’ decision to recommend the death penalty. Results suggest that cases in which rape is an aggravating factor had a significantly greater odds of receiving a death penalty recommendation, and these results are robust after also considering the independent effects of defendant–victim racial dyads, even following the application of propensity score matching to equate cases on a host of defendant and victim characteristics, legal and extralegal confounders, and case characteristics. Study limitations and implications are discussed.     

略论中国刑法中的死刑替代措施

死刑替代措施,是指基于限制死刑适用的目的,对于立法上特定性质的犯罪,司法中特殊情况下的罪犯,不适用死刑立即执行,而代之以其他刑罚处罚方法。死刑替代措施是限制死刑中不可或缺并被证明行之有效的方法。从完善既有方式、探索新的途径入手,死刑替代措施包括死刑缓期执行;严格的无期徒刑;附赔偿的长期自由刑三种。当前,有必要在立法上对刑罚体系作进一步调整、修改、完善,以全面体现死刑替代措施;在司法中,注意发挥死刑替代措施在限制死刑中的作用。