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.     

Moving beyond Ford,Atkins, and Roper: jurors' attitudes toward the execution of the elderly and the physically disabled

Abstract

The central purpose of the current study is to correlate level of support for the death penalty, death-qualification status, attitudes toward the death penalty (ATDP), legal authoritarianism (RLAQ (Revised Legal Attitudes Questionnaire)), and demographic indices with attitudes toward the execution of the elderly and the physically disabled. Two hundred and fifty residents of the 12th Judicial Circuit in Florida completed a booklet that contained the following: (1) one question that measured their level of support for the death penalty; (2) one question that categorized their death-qualification status; (3) the ATDP; (4) the RLAQ; (5) 20 questions that measured participants' attitudes toward the execution of the elderly and the physically disabled (EEPD); and (6) standard demographic questions. Results indicated that level of support for the death penalty, death-qualification status, attitudes toward the death penalty, legal authoritarianism, and demographic indices were significantly related to four components of the EEPD. Legal implications and applications are discussed.     

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.     

A Comparison of uninformed and informed death penalty opinions: A replication and expansion

This study examines the influence on death penalty opinions of participating in a college class on the death penalty. Students in the class (the experimental group) and in another class offered at the same time (the control group) were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding their attitudes toward capital punishment at the beginning and at the end of the semester. They were also asked factual questions that measured their knowledge about capital punishment. Overall, the results of the study suggest that both groups were not well informed during the pretest measure. However, at the end of the semester, the group enrolled in the death penalty class were more knowledgable, less supportive of the death penalty based on general/absrtact questions, and more likely to favor alternatives to capital punishment than were the students in the control group.     

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.     

死刑案件公开审判问题研究

死刑案件审判的是最严重的刑事犯罪,公开审判是司法公正最重要的保证,死刑案件的公开审判对于维护司法公正、保障人权有极为重要的意义,受到国内外的广泛重视。本文解读联合国有关机构对死刑案件公开审判的要求,提出了公开审判在权利和义务层面的性质,分析了死刑案件公开审判要求的特殊性,介绍了国外在死刑案件公开审判方面的一些做法和存在的问题,分析了我国死刑案件公开审判的现状并提出了若干改革建议和实现的路径。     

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.     

What does “unwilling” to impose the death penalty mean anyway? another look at excludable jurors

The debate regarding the death qualification of juries usually concerns (a) whether death-qualified jurors have different attitudes and values to excludable jurors, or (b) whether death-qualified juries are more prone to convict. A pivotal question is whether excludable subjects in fact willever impose the death penalty. Subjects were presented with five grisly murder vignettes. Only 40% of excludable subjects refused to consider the death penalty in all of the cases, with the remaining 60% indicating they would consider the death penalty in one or more of the cases. It is argued that the majority of individuals currently being excluded from capital trial juries based on their reservations about the death penalty actually would impose the death penalty for serious enough offenses and that they should therefore be allowed to serve on such juries.     

Due process vs. crime control

Juries that exclude people who are unwilling to impose the death penalty (death-qualified juries) may be biased against capital defendants. To evaluate this possibility we compared the demographic characteristics and attitudes toward the criminal justice system of people who would or would not be excluded by theWitherspoon standard. A random sample of 811 eligible jurors in Alameda County, California were interviewed by telephone. Of the 717 respondents who stated that they could be fair and impartial in deciding on the guilt or innocence of a capital defendant, 17.2% said that they could never vote to impose the death penalty, and thus are excludable underWitherspoon. Significantly greater proportions of blacks than whites and of females than males are eliminated by the process of death qualification. On the attitudinal measures, the death-qualified respondents were consistently more prone to favor the point of view of the prosecution, to mistrust criminal defendants and their counsel, to take a punitive approach toward offenders, and to be more concerned with crime control than with due process. Eleven of the 13 items showed statistically significant differences.     

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.     

Kentuckian’s Attitudes on Capital Punishment, 1989–2016

Citizens’ attitudes toward the death penalty have been effected by the availability of life without parole (LWOP). Our analysis focuses upon data from a representative sample of Kentuckians on death penalty attitudes. The factors influencing and related to death penalty support and compared to support for LWOP are considered along with a review of Kentucky survey findings from 1989–2016. The results reveal consistent support for LWOP over the death penalty. Male Kentucky residents with a college education were most likely to support life without parole over capital punishment while male conservatives did not.     

The Role of Death Qualification in Venirepersons' Evaluations of Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances in Capital Trials

Previous research has found that death qualification impacts jurors' receptiveness to aggravating and mitigating circumstances (e.g., J. Luginbuhl & K. Middendorf, 1988). However, the purpose of this study was to investigate whether death qualification affects jurors' endorsements of aggravating and mitigating circumstances when Witt, rather than Witherspoon, is the legal standard for death qualification. Four hundred and fifty venirepersons from the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami, Florida completed a booklet of stimulus materials that contained the following: two death qualification questions; a case scenario that included a summary of the guilt and penalty phases of a capital case; a 26-item measure that required participants to endorse aggravators, nonstatutory mitigators, and statutory mitigators on a 6-point Likert scale; and standard demographic questions. Results indicated that death-qualified venirepersons, when compared to excludables, were more likely to endorse aggravating circumstances. Excludable participants, when compared to death-qualified venirepersons, were more likely to endorse nonstatutory mitigators. There was no significant difference between death-qualified and excludable venirepersons with respect to their endorsement of 6 out of 7 statutory mitigators. It would appear that the Gregg v. Georgia (1976) decision to declare the death penalty unconstitutional is frustrated by the Lockhart v. McCree (1986) affirmation of death qualification.     

The social construction of criminal responsibility and insanity

This study examines the effects of judicial instructions (traditional American Law Institute [ALI] not guilty by reason of insanity [NGRI] instructions contrasted with ALI instructions supplemented with the guilty but mentally ill [GBMI] alternative) and case information cues (delusional content and planfulness) on student and community subjects' attributions of responsibility. GBMI instructions substantially reduced the probability of NGRI and guilty verdicts in response to vignettes portraying highly psychotic defendants and altered the pattern of variability in responsibility construal ratings. Variation in delusional content cues (self-defense versus non-self-defense) influenced ratings of criminal appreciation but did not affect the verdict distributions. Less planfully commited crimes resulted in higher proportions of insanity verdicts. However, individual differences in responsibility construals of the defendant and in attitudes toward the insanity defense were stronger predictors of verdicts than the design variables, suggesting that individual differences in social-moral cognition are at least as relevant to the attribution of responsibility as are case cues or legal frames of reference. Contrary to previous studies,Witherspoon death penalty attitudes were not related to verdicts, but people without conscientious scruples toward the death penalty were more likely to render guilty verdicts.     

Are self-identified Christian fundamentalists really more supportive of capital punishment? Exploring the relationship between fundamentalism and death penalty attitudes

Christian fundamentalism has often been linked to death penalty support, despite mixed results across more than a decade of empirical studies. More recently, a line of research has emerged that has called for a reconceptualization of fundamentalism as harsh and rigid, instead of being more a multifaceted concept. In the spirit of this call, we investigated the relative importance of Christian fundamentalism on death penalty attitudes when compared with non-religious social attitudes. Using 1,560 respondents from the 2008 General Social Survey data, we found self-identified Christian fundamentalism, though not biblical literalism or religious denomination, remained a significant predictor of death penalty attitudes when attitudes toward LGBT marriage equality were included in the model. Unexpectedly, white women who endorsed LGBT marriage equality were also more likely to support the death penalty. Based on our findings, we discuss implications and areas for future research.     

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。     

美国死刑案件有罪答辩自愿性探微

在美国,享有不被强迫自证其罪的权利是保障被告人认罪自愿性的基础。在死刑案件中,被告人作有罪答辩时得到了有效而合格的律师帮助、具有与其律师交流的能力、在知晓指控的性质和答辩有罪的后果是被告人自愿认罪的标志,选择陪审团审判而可能被判处死刑并不是强迫被告人认罪的必然因素。     

Does Ambivalent Sexism Influence Verdicts for Heterosexual and Homosexual Defendants in a Self-Defense Case?

The current research examined the role of defendant and participant sex, presence or absence of expert testimony of the “battered person syndrome”, and sexual orientation of the defendant on perceptions of guilt in a self-defense case. The role of sexism in judgments of culpability was also examined. A sample of 442 participants read a self-defense case scenario and responded to questions pertaining to verdict, defendant culpability, legal element ratings, and sexist attitudes. Results revealed a four-way interaction, showing female participants prescribed the lowest guilt ratings to heterosexual female and homosexual male defendants who received expert testimony of the battered person syndrome. When heterosexual male defendants received expert testimony, ratings of guilt significantly increased. A multiple regression was conducted to determine whether legal and extra-legal factors predicted defendant culpability. Sexist attitudes (benevolent sexism towards men and women) and certain legal elements were predictive of defendant culpability. Limitations and implications are discussed. Study findings were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society (APLS), Jacksonville, Florida (March, 2008).     

Not everyone strongly supports the death penalty: Assessing weakly-held attitudes about capital punishment

Polls exploring attitudes toward the death penalty typically impose a simple, dichotomous response structure: respondents are asked whether or not they support or oppose capital punishment. This polling strategy deprives respondents of expressing an indication of the strength of their opinions. When asked whether they support (or oppose) the death penalty “strongly” or “not strongly,” significant proportions of respondents select the latter category. This suggests that many proponents and opponents of the death penalty have weakly-held views regarding the issue. These respondents are of great interest because they are the individuals most likely to change their views. This article analyzes responses to two national surveys in order to explore the variables that differentiate respondents with strongly-held and weakly-held views. A theoretical account is offered to explain why some people have weakly-held views on this critical social issue.