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.     

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.     

Sentence of life without parole: Proposal for the revision of Chinese criminal law in the context of the elimination of death penalty

Death penalty has no alternative. Life without parole (LWOP) has been put forward to nullify the death penalty in China. Practically speaking, LWOP can satisfy the emotional demand of the public so as to nullify the death penalty. LWOP has strong rationales from both retributive and preventive perspectives. Actually, the relation between death penalty and LWOP is just a question, which should be at the top level punishment. Compared with death penalty, LWOP has other advantages such as lower cost burden and more practicability.     

Stereotypes influence beliefs about transfer and sentencing of juvenile offenders

Despite sharp drops in juvenile crime since the mid-1980s, punitive policies regarding juveniles who commit serious offenses still exist. We assessed beliefs about two such practices: transferring offenders from the juvenile justice to the criminal justice system, and subjecting them to sentences of life without parole (LWOP). We examined whether stereotypes about juvenile offenders – the extent to which people believe they are dispositionally violent superpredators versus economically and socially impoverished wayward youth – influence support for these policies. We measured 321 participants’ beliefs about the causes of juvenile crime and juveniles’ potential for recidivism and rehabilitation. Using vignette methodology and actual case facts, we described a 13-, 17-, or 21-year-old offender who murdered a stranger or abusive parent, and asked whether he should be transferred to criminal court and sentenced to LWOP. As endorsement of the superpredator stereotype increased, so did support for these practices. Offenders who murdered an abusive parent were shown more leniency. Older offenders were generally treated harsher, except by people with strong superpredator stereotypes who, on the issue of LWOP appropriateness, did not distinguish among juveniles of different ages. Findings suggest that stereotypes can influence judgments in cases involving juveniles and indirectly affect policy-making about juvenile offending.     

Capital punishment preferences for special offender populations

The present study utilized the factorial survey design, a quasi-experimental approach, in an attempt to measure respondent's capital punishment preferences regarding juvenile, the mentally incompetent, and the mentally retarded offenders. The findings indicated that respondents were significantly less likely to prefer capital punishment over alternative sentencing options. Moreover, the influence aggravating and mitigating circumstances such as the offender's age, mental capacity, prior record, and death-eligibility were found to strongly affect the public's death penalty preferences. The substantive, methodological, and public policy implications of this study are discussed.     

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.     

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 nexus between attribution theory and racial attitudes: a test of racial attribution and public opinion of capital punishment

Research has shown that attribution theory and racial attitudes are among the most consistent attitudinal predictors of capital punishment opinion. This study explores the overlap of these two constructs, racial attribution, and its ability to account for support and opposition to the death penalty. Using data from the 1972–2016 cumulative data file of the General Social Survey, three logistic regression models were used to analyze the effect of internal and external racial attribution on capital punishment opinions for (a) the aggregate sample, (b) White respondents only, and (c) Black respondents only. Respondents were asked whether racial inequalities were due to structural disadvantages or personal deficiencies of Black Americans. Findings showed that respondents in all three models were more likely to support the death penalty when they attributed racial inequalities to personal deficiencies of Blacks and less likely to support the death penalty when they endorsed structural disadvantages, although the effects were somewhat muted for Black respondents. These findings suggest that ongoing public support for capital punishment in the United States is based at least in part on a fundamental attribution error in which Whites and some Blacks alike blame Blacks for their own deprivation.     

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.     

Disaggregating LWOP: Life Without Parole,Capital Punishment,and Mass Incarceration in Florida, 1972–1995

Over the past 40 years, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP) has been transformed from a rare sanction and marginal practice of last resort into a routine punishment in the United States. Two general theses—one depicting LWOP as a direct outgrowth of death penalty abolition; another collapsing LWOP into the tough‐on‐crime sentencing policy of the mass incarceration era—serve as working explanations for this phenomenon. In the absence of in‐depth studies, however, there has been little evidence for carefully evaluating these narratives. This article provides a state‐level historical analytic account of LWOP's rise by looking to Florida—the state that uses LWOP more than any other—to explicate LWOP's specific processes and forms. Recounting LWOP's history in a series of critical junctures, the article identifies a different stimulus, showing how LWOP precipitated as Florida translated major structural upheavals that broke open traditional ways of doing and thinking about punishment. In doing so, the article reveals LWOP to be a multilayered product of incremental change, of many, sometimes disjointed and indirectly conversant, pieces. Presenting LWOP as the product of a variety of penal logics, including those prioritizing fairness and efficiency, the article more generally illustrates how very severe punishments can arise from reforms without primarily punitive purposes and in ways that were not necessarily planned.     

Mill’s Defense of Capital Punishment

John Stuart Mill strongly supports capital punishment for aggravated murder. He rejects various arguments against capital punishment, including the claim that it is incompatible with respect for human life. He believes that capital punishment is a superior deterrent to the alternative of life imprisonment with hard labor. However, the deterrent effect of capital punishment is achieved by its appearance of severity. In fact, it is less cruel than the alternative, and it is the least severe form of punishment that would effectively deter murder. Mill regards death itself, as distinguished from the manner of dying, as a relatively minor evil. His views on death and capital punishment are not compelling, and, if they were widely accepted, would undermine the seriousness of some types of murder.     

Death penalty views in China, Japan and the U.S.: An empirical comparison

Many nations impose the death penalty, yet most of the literature on capital punishment has focused on Western nations, particularly the U.S. China and Japan are two retentionist nations. Based on the data collected in 2005, this study examined the level of death penalty support and views on capital punishment among college students from China, Japan, and the U.S. It was found that Chinese respondents reported the highest level of death penalty support, followed by Japanese and U.S. students. Respondents from China and Japan were more likely to believe in the deterrence value of capital punishment than their U.S. counterparts. Views on retribution differed among the respondents. U.S. students were most likely to feel that innocent people are sentenced to death. In multivariate analyses, deterrence was the strongest correlate of death penalty views among Chinese and Japanese respondents, followed closely by retribution. For both Chinese and Japanese students, the barbarity of government taking the life of a person was the strongest predictor for opposing the death penalty. For U.S. respondents, retribution was the strongest reason for supporting capital punishment and the barbarity of executions was the strongest reason for opposing the death penalty.     

Assertions of “Future Dangerousness” at Federal Capital Sentencing: Rates and Correlates of Subsequent Prison Misconduct and Violence

The federal prison disciplinary records of federal capital inmates (n=145) who were sentenced to life without possibility of release (LWOP) by plea bargain, pre-sentencing withdrawal of the death penalty, or jury determination were retrospectively reviewed (M=6.17 years post-admission). Disaggregated prevalence rates were inversely related to infraction severity: serious infraction =0.324, assaultive infraction =0.207, serious assault =0.09, assault with moderate injury =0.007, assault with major injuries or death =0.00. Frequency rates of misconduct were equivalent to other high-security federal inmates (n=18,561), regardless of infraction severity. Government assertions of "future dangerousness" as a nonstatutory aggravating factor were not predictive of prison misconduct. These findings inform federal capital risk assessments and have public policy implications for procedural reliability in death penalty prosecutions.     

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.     

Systematic review of religious affiliations and beliefs as correlates of public attitudes toward capital punishment

Religious reasons are frequently described as considerations that shape support for or opposition to capital punishment; however, there are many inconsistencies in the literature. This study represents a systematic review of the extant research on religious affiliations and beliefs as correlates of public attitudes toward capital punishment. Searches conducted in five databases identified 33 articles, representing 97,570 respondents. Results revealed that people belonging to Protestant affiliations and with negative images of God were more likely to support capital punishment. People possessing positive images of God and with strong beliefs in compassion were less likely to support capital punishment. The religious correlates commonly assessed in the extant literature, such as fundamentalism, are not significant correlates of attitudes toward capital punishment. Findings also revealed that the predominance of research examined Christian religious affiliations, to the exclusion of other common affiliations, such as Buddhist or Islamic affiliations. Taken together, findings suggest that compared to affiliations, religious beliefs better explain attitudes toward capital punishment. Further research is needed to investigate the ways religious correlates influence death qualified jury selection and capital sentencing decisions. An increased understanding of the nuanced relationship between religion and capital punishment attitudes can better inform capital punishment policy and practice.     

The Death Penalty: A Multi-level Analysis of Public Opinion

Considerable research has examined public opinion of the death penalty using simplistic questions such as, “Do you favor or oppose the death penalty.” Simply categorizing people into favoring or opposing capital punishment does little to address the array of factors and circumstances that are part of every murder. We examine variables concerning the nature of homicides from a set of 40 murder vignettes used to gauge respondents’ level of support for capital punishment in murder cases. The data are structured such that vignette responses are nested within individuals, meaning a multi-level analysis is appropriate. We used HLM to explore how vignette-level or homicide related characteristics influence support for the death penalty, as well as how individual-level characteristics condition these factors. Analyses revealed that individual-level variables were non-significant when analyzed independently; however, cross-level interactions indicated significant individual-level influences on homicide-level characteristics as they relate to respondents’ support for the death penalty.     

They know not what they do: Unguided and misguided discretion in Pennsylvania capital cases

Interviews with capital jurors demonstrate that jurors base their decisions on incorrect assumptions regarding the early release of defendants, decide the punishment prematurely, and fail to understand jury instructions. The 74 interviews from the Pennsylvania portion of the Capital Jury Project add insights into the cumulative and relative impact of these three problems with jurors' decision making. Every juror demonstrated at least one of these shortcomings. Underestimating the length of a life sentence was related to considering death the only acceptable punishment and prematurely deciding on death, and the most strongly related to voting for death.     

Desert, Justice and Capital Punishment

Our purpose in this paper is to consider a procedural objection to the death penalty. According to this objection, even if the death penalty is deemed, substantively speaking, a morally acceptable punishment for at least some murderers, since only a small proportion of those guilty of aggravated murder are sentenced to death and executed, while the majority of murderers escape capital punishment as a result of arbitrariness and discrimination, capital punishment should be abolished. Our targets in this paper are two recent attempts, by Thomas Hurka and Michael Cholbi respectively, to defend the view that ‘levelling down’ (that is, reducing the punishment imposed on a criminal from the punishment he absolutely deserves to a less severe punishment in order to achieve proportionality relative to the criminals who have escaped the punishment they absolutely deserve) is, in the context of capital punishment, morally permissible. We argue that both Hurka and Cholbi fail to show why the arbitrariness and discrimination objection impugns the death penalty.

Sentencing Juvenile Offenders to Life in Prison: The Political Sociology of Juvenile Punishment

Sentencing juvenile offenders to life in prison is the most severe criminal penalty available, yet we know little about the factors that produce jurisdictional differences in the use of such sanctions. Political explanations emphasize conservative values and the strength of more conservative political parties. Threat accounts suggest that this sentence will be more likely in jurisdictions with larger minority populations. After controlling for many explanations using count models, the results show that larger numbers of juvenile life sentences are handed out in more politically conservative states with a stronger Republican Party. Findings also show that racial politics is a factor in juvenile life sentences. Those jurisdictions that have the most blacks and have judicial elections sentence the most juveniles to life terms. By highlighting the explanatory power of public ideologies, these findings support political explanations for the harshest criminal punishment directed towards juveniles.