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.     

Victim-offender race and support for capital punishment: A factorial design approach

Existing research suggests that juries are more likely to condemn murderers to death when offenders are black victims are white. It remains to be seen, however, whether these decisions reflect broader racial prejudices in society that are imported into the jury room. If they do, then insuring equity in capital sentencing may be beyond reach. Accordingly, this study uses factorial design methodology to examine whether members of the general public are more supportive of capital punishment when asked to rate a vignette describing a murder involving a white victim and black offender as opposed to other victim-offender racial combinations. Our analyses suggest that the race of the offender, but not the victim, has a significant influence on support for capital punishment. Thus, procedural safeguards alone may be unable to eliminate racial bias in capital sentencing.     

The belief that guns deter crime and support for capital punishment

One of the many reasons for gun ownership in the USA is the belief that citizen gun ownership helps to reduce crime. The rationale for this belief can be linked to deterrence – the perception that the threat of harm from confronting someone with a gun outweighs the potential benefit from crime – and will reduce the likelihood of engaging in criminal behavior. Similarly, deterrence is often referenced as a reason to support capital punishment. This is the first study to explicitly link support for the individual threat of lethal violence and the state threat of lethal violence by testing the hypothesis that the belief that guns reduce crime is positively correlated with support for capital punishment. Tests using a 2010 survey support this hypothesis for general support of capital punishment and for support of capital punishment with the life without parole option. The theoretical implications of considering deterrence as a value-expressive argument are explored.     

Over-simplification and error in public opinion surveys on capital punishment

Public opinion polls have shown a marked increase in support for capital punishment. Results of a recent poll, which resulted from collaboration between the author and Associated Press, further clarify published findings of public opinion polls and challenge the common wisdom that support for the death penalty is increasing. It was found that only 12 percent of those polled opposed the death penalty in all cases, that 57 percent advocated its use under some circumstances and that 27 percent supported the death penalty for all murder cases. These findings differ little from those reported by Louis Harris in 1973 (Bedau 1982).     

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.     

The gender gap in capital punishment attitudes: An analysis of support and opposition

This study examines the gender gap in attitudes toward the death penalty, including attention to global versus specific measures. The study is based on a survey in Tennessee of attitudes toward crime and criminal justice. Specifically, the study examines male and female global attitudes, attitudes toward a life without parole option, reasons that supporters and opponents give for their views, and how specific factors might change the level of support for or opposition to capital punishment. Although majorities of both genders favor capital punishment, important differences exist. Implications are discussed. An earlier version of this study was presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the Southern Criminal Justice Association in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Dr. John Paul Wright was instrumental in conducting the Tennessee Crime Survey, the source of the data used in this study.     

Accommodating death penalty legislation: Personal and professional views of assistant district attorneys toward capital punishment

Reinstatement of the death penalty in New York in 1995 forced an entire generation of prosecutors to confront capital punishment for the first time in their professional capacities. A total of 191 assistant district attorneys (ADAs) from 44 of New York’s 62 county prosecutors’ offices responded to a written survey. The results show ADAs hold widely divergent views about capital punishments, although most respondents fail to recognize their colleagues maintain differing viewpoints. The return of the death penalty appears to have both personal and professional implications for New York ADAs, and has precipitated potentially significant changes in their work environments.     

Crime and capital punishment: Some recent studies

Some of the recent articles (specifically, those by Ehrlich, Bowers and Pierce, and Zeisel) on the deterrent effect of the death penalty are discussed, and the need for further work is suggested.     

Achieving justice for children: public defenders in Israel's juvenile courts

In 1999, public defender (PD) representation of defendants appearing before Israel's juvenile courts began to be phased in. This article reports some of the major findings of a study that examined the impacts of the introduction of PDs. Analysis of interviews with 14 PDs yielded four major themes concerning the impact of the "arrival" of PDs, nature of the court, PDs' role, and PDs' interactions with other court actors. Analysis of interviews with eight prosecutors yielded seven themes concerning the need for PDs, PD as state agent, PDs' role, harms of legalization, disruption of the court, compromising the therapeutic value of the court hearing, and changes in court process. More generally, both PDs and prosecutors placed uncritical store in the value of rehabilitation alternatives. Indeed, the welfare model continues to shape their roles. The findings can largely be explained in terms of Eisenstein and Jacob's courtroom workgroup model.     

Attitudinal change among students in a capital punishment class: It may be possible

Students who participated in a class on capital punishment recorded their attitudes toward the topic on a weekly basis and completed a one year follow-up. The results demonstrate that by the end of the semester 65% of the students indicated opposition to capital punishment. Moreover, one year after the class 73% of the students maintained some degree of opposition to capital punishment. The difficulties associated with assessing attitudinal change as a result of participating in a class and reasons for the discrepancy between the findings of this study and previous research 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.     

Heckler v. Chaney: judicial and administrative regulation of capital punishment by lethal injection

Capital punishment by lethal injection, which was expected to be the most safe and effective of available methods, can produce unusually cruel and inhuman death. In Heckler v. Chaney, inmates sentenced to death by lethal injection, as well as members of both the medical and legal communities, challenged the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) refusal to regulate certain drugs used for capital punishment by lethal injection. By declining to review the FDA's nonenforcement decision, the Supreme Court also declined an opportunity to reevaluate its standard for determining cruel and unusual punishment, which upholds any method of execution that is no more unusually cruel than existing methods. This Comment examines the propriety of judicial and administrative regulation of capital punishment by lethal injection.     

The will to win: Determinants of public support for the drug war in Belize

The premise of this paper is that the drug war cannot be won without the public's full commitment. Based on a random sample of households (n=532) in Belize City, public attitudes are analyzed to assess the degree of support for drug enforcement. The findings show strong support for drug education as well as for increasing criminal sanctions and the size of the police force. Support fades, however, as drug enforcement is militarized. The significant determinants of public support are education, gender, attitudes toward the police, fear of property crime, and neighborhood crime prevalence. The paper closes by offering two concrete ways to build public support for drug enforcement.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Conference in Nashville, Tennessee, March 1991.     

Putting race into context: Race,juvenile justice processing,and urbanization

In this article, we examine differential sentencing patterns among black, Hispanic, and white juveniles and the context in which those decisions are made. Using a bivariate probit model, we show that juveniles living in urban counties are more likely to be referred to juvenile court, and that juveniles living in a single-mother household are more likely than juveniles living with both parents to be referred to court and to receive secure placement. Race-specific models indicate that black youths are likely to receive harsh treatments in urban courts; yet white youths are not treated differently on the basis of court location. In addition, living in a single-mother household is a disadvantage for white youths when they are referred and sentenced, but family status is not a determinant for black youths.