Reasons for South Korean attitudes towards the death penalty: exploring the nexus between strong public support and history of misapplication

As of this writing, South Korea (officially, the Republic of Korea) is an abolitionist-in-practice nation; capital punishment is legal, but no death sentences have been carried out since a moratorium was enacted in 1997. Public support for the death penalty has decreased over time; however, the factors that determine support for or opposition to the death penalty of the South Korean general public are largely unknown. Using survey data from a nationwide sample of 416 respondents, this study examined the potential predictors for public attitudes towards capital punishment support. A majority of survey respondents (83%) supported the death penalty, a higher percentage than recent surveys of the South Korean general public. The deterrence and retribution perspectives were positively related to death penalty support, while crime severity, neighbourhood safety, the brutalisation effect, and innocence were negatively related. This study provides the first multivariate analysis of factors associated with South Korean attitudes towards the death penalty.     

the death penalty: An American history

Stuart Banner's thoughtful book, The Death Penalty: An American History (2002), serves as the basis of this review essay which explores the forces shaping the nation's experiences with capital punishment. The essay traces Banner's account of important death penalty developments throughout American history and examines justifications traditionally offered in support of capital punishment, issues of administration, and execution protocols. It concludes by projecting that, consistent with historical trends and nagged by serious and recurring administrative problems, the death penalty in America will in due course become a thing of the past.     

Public attitudes towards the death penalty

Responses to a general question regarding the use of the death penalty were compared with the sentences that respondents chose in a set of scenarios describing homicide cases. The percentage of respondents who assigned the death sentence in one or more of the following scenarios was higher than those who favored the death penalty in the abstract question, but there were inconsistencies in the answers. A majority assigned the death penalty only for the most heinous offender described, and the figures were lower for other crimes, even clear cases of first degree murder. At the same time, a manipulation involving information about methods of execution did not affect answers. These results strongly suggest that the abstract questions typically used in public opinion polls do not accurately reflect the public's feelings about use of the death penalty in specific cases. More generally, research on public opinion regarding criminal justice policies should survey a variety of specific circumstances.     

Factors that influence death penalty support among university students in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) became an independent nation state in 1992 and abolished the death penalty six years later. Little is known about how Bosnians view the death penalty. This study addresses this gap in the literature. Utilizing self-reported survey data collected from 440 university students enrolled at the University of Sarajevo in 2009, we assess the degree of support for the death penalty and what factors predict this support among university students in BiH. Drawing from the broader punitivity literature, the following correlates are considered: individual characteristics (e.g. age and sex), individual experiences (e.g. fear of crime and prior victimization) and philosophical attitudes pertaining to punishment (e.g. deterrence, retribution, modernity and indifference). Among the students surveyed, roughly half (52.7%) were in support of the death penalty. Results from a series of multivariate statistical analyses reveals that only philosophical attitudes predict death penalty support after controlling for important individual characteristics and experiences. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

Assessing the instrumental and symbolic elements in attitudes toward the death penalty using a sample of Puerto Rican students

Theoretical explanations for the support or opposition to the death penalty have often been dichotomized into the instrumental and the symbolic perspectives. The instrumental perspective sees support for the death penalty as utilitarian, that it is a means to a desired end, which is often to lower crime rates. The symbolic perspective sees support for the death penalty as emanating from individuals’ political and social ideologies, no matter its utilitarian value. Both perspectives have often been examined individually, and seldom juxtaposed as competing explanations in a singular model. This paper examines both perspectives in a singular model, using a sample of Puerto Rican students.     

Study of issues over public hearing in death penalty cases

The death penalty is involved in the most severe criminal offenses. Holding public hearing in these cases seems to be the best way to guarantee judicial fairness. A public hearing in death penalty cases is of important significance in safeguarding judicial fairness and protecting human rights, which has attracted a high level of attention domestically and internationally. This paper interprets the requirements of the United Nations’ related agencies for the public hearing of death penalty cases, defines the nature of public hearing in the aspects of rights and obligations, analyzes the special nature of the requirements for the public hearing of death penalty cases, introduces some practices and issues of the public hearing of death penalty cases in foreign countries, analyzes China’s present practice of the pubic hearing of death penalty cases and puts forward some suggestions and channels to realize it.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Making the movies real: The death penalty & local TV news

Media organizations, particularly the broadcast media, have become extremely important actors on the public stage over the last three decades. As a result, what the media chose to cover and how they chose to cover it is an important question. That is magnified when the media turn their attention to a public policy issue like the death penalty that already possesses profound social significance. In no other area of public policy can the state impose its will so completely and finally on an individual citizen. Therefore, the public should understand the issues that surround capital punishment. That understanding is virtually always communicated through media organizations because very few of us have first-hand knowledge of the death penalty. In this paper, I explore how television broadcast organizations cover the imposition of the death penalty. How did they carry it out? What themes did they convey? What did the public learn?     

Death penalty politics and symbolic law in Russia

In contemporary Russia there is widespread support for the death penalty. Recent Russian presidents have endorsed the nation’s entry into the European Community (EC). The dilemma is that the price of membership into the EC is total abolition of capital punishment. The Russian Duma is much less popular than the president, even though it sides with public opinion in supporting capital punishment. Since 1997, these conflicting political positions have been temporarily neutralized by leaving capital punishment legislation in place but allowing the Russian president to offer clemency to all sentenced to death. In 1999, the Constitutional Court of Russia placed a moratorium on all death sentences until jury trials are re-introduced throughout the nation.     

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.     

The death penalty for juveniles: Bridging the gap between an evolving standard of decency and legislative policy

In Stanford v. Kentucky (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the practice of executing juveniles who were age 16 or 17 at the time of their crime(s) did not violate the “evolving standards of decency” (ESD) of American society. This ESD determination was based on legislative authorization of this punishment. Although this interpretation of what constitutes an ESD has been controlling in death penalty cases since Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the high court's original conception of an ESD stressed the importance of other factors in its determination (e.g., historical review and empirical knowledge about executions). Because the ESD is a Court-created measure, legislatures are under no constitutional obligation to acknowledge the scope of concerns embodied in the historical genesis of this concept. Nevertheless, in this paper we oppose a juvenile death penalty and argue that legislatures should consider the importance of historical and research utilization components of the ESD concept when debating the validity of a policy regarding the death penalty for juveniles.     

Social science in supreme court death penalty cases: Citation practices and their implications

This study examines the use of evidence based on social science research in Supreme Court capital punishment cases decided between 1963 and 1985. These years mark the beginning of the Court's modern decisions regarding the death penalty and extend to the approximate midpoint in this body of jurisprudence. The frequency and the major correlates of social science research citations in the Supreme Court's death penalty cases are described, and these findings are contrasted with the justices' use of social science evidence in other types of criminal cases. The justices have used social science materials relatively often in capital punishment cases, although it does not necessarily follow that social science findings have been important to the decision of these cases. The results of this research are discussed, along with other issues relevant to the judicial use of research evidence based on social science.     

The age of death: Appraising public opinion of juvenile capital punishment

Despite its original purpose to protect and rehabilitate wayward children, the juvenile system has grown more punitive and has embraced the use of harsher punishments, including execution, for juvenile offenders. Relatively little is known, however, about public attitudes toward the use of capital punishment for juveniles. This research explored the determinants of death penalty opinion, identified the minimum age at which respondents were willing to allow a juvenile to be put to death and examined the willingness of respondents to support an alternative sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). The results suggested that, while one-quarter of the sample was willing to execute juveniles who were fifteen and under at the time of the crime, there was less support for the execution of juveniles than of adults. In addition, of those who supported the use of the death penalty for juveniles, almost one-half would support LWOP as an alternative to the death penalty.     

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.     

The United States Supreme Court and the death penalty since Furman: The settlement of basic issues

In 1972 the United States Supreme Court in Furman V. Georgia found that the death penalty as it was then being applied was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Furman provided few constitutional guidelines, but states reinacted their death penalty statutes.In 1976 the Court began to receive appeals from death sentences imposed under the reinacted statutes. In its decisions the Court began to establish guidelines. It found the death penalty was not per se cruel and unusual punishment. Before the death penalty can be imposed the court must take into consideration any mitigating circumstances and the case must be reviewed by the state supreme court. A mandatory death sentence is unconstitutional.Other issues including proportionality, due process and finality of judgment will be examined in the next segment of this study.     

Behavioral science and the juvenile death penalty

Behavioral science data included in an amicus brief has been introduced into a recent Supreme Court decision (Thompson v. Oklahoma) involving the juvenile death penalty. However, a close examination of the data fails to provide support for either the pro- or antijuvenile death penalty position.     

死刑威慑力的犯罪学分析

Death penalty is the most effective deterrence to grave crimes, which has been the key basis for the State to retain death penalty. In fact, either in legislation or in execution, death penalty can not produce the special deterrent effect as expected. With respect to this issue, people tend to conduct normative exploration from the perspective of ordinary legal principles or the principle of human rights, which is more speculative than convincing. Correct interpretation based on the existing positive analysis and differentiation based on human nature which sifts the true from the false will not only help end the simple, repetitive and meaningless arguments regarding the basis for the existence of death penalty, but also help understand the rational nature of both the elimination and the preservation of death penalty, so as to define the basic direction towards which the State should make efforts in controlling death penalty in the context of promoting social civilization. Zhang Yuanhuang is a professor of law at Beijing Normal University, and a doctoral tutor and director of the Institute of Criminology and Criminal Policy. He has been to Paris II University as a senior visiting scholar. He is an executive director of Chinese Criminological Society and a director of the Chinese branch of International Association of Penal Law. His main publications include: Basic Issues of Modern Criminology (China Procuratorial Press, 1998), Principles of Criminology (Law Press, 2^nd ed. 2008), Criminology (Renmin University of China Press, 2008); and he has more than 70 articles published in law academic journals.     

Reflections of an octogenarian on criminal law and criminology

The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that capital punishment is not unconstitutional per se, in part because the high degree of public support for the death penalty indicates that the American public does not consider it to be cruel and unusual punishment. According to the Court, the public's desire for retribution is an appropriate basis for determining that the death penalty is an acceptable criminal sanction. This paper examines the degree of public support for the death penalty and the basis for that support. It also explores the differences between retribution as just deserts and retribution as revenge, and concludes by asking whether a public desire for revenge is an appropriate, enlightened basis for our capital punishment policy.