Effects of neuroimaging evidence on mock juror decision making

During the penalty phase of capital trials, defendants may introduce mitigating evidence that argues for a punishment "less than death." In the past few years, a novel form of mitigating evidence-brain scans made possible by technological advances in neuroscience-has been proffered by defendants to support claims that brain abnormalities reduce their culpability. This exploratory study assessed the impact of neuroscience evidence on mock jurors' sentencing recommendations and impressions of a capital defendant. Using actual case facts, we manipulated diagnostic evidence presented by the defense (psychosis diagnosis; diagnosis and neuropsychological test results; or diagnosis, test results, and neuroimages) and future dangerousness evidence presented by the prosecution (low or high risk). Recommendations for death sentences were affected by the neuropsychological and neuroimaging evidence: defendants deemed at high risk for future dangerousness were less likely to be sentenced to death when jurors had this evidence than when they did not. Neuropsychological and neuroimaging evidence also had mitigating effects on impressions of the defendant. We describe study limitations and pose questions for further research.     

Psychiatric predictions and the death penalty: An unconstitutional sword for the prosecution but a constitutional shield for the defense

The Supreme Court continues to permit psychiatrists and other mental health professionals to testify regarding capital defendants' propensity to future dangerousness. Virtually all scientific evidence indicates that these predictions are unreliable. However, capital juries are particularly likely to rely heavily on such testimony. The admission of this evidence violates the safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court's own case law demanding that a capital jury's discretion be guided. The Court must consider the reliability of evidence of future dangerousness, deny its admissibility on behalf of the prosecution, but structure a rule that does not infringe on capital defendants' right to present evidence in mitigation that may implicate future dangerousness.     

The absence of cruelty is not the presence of humanness: physicians and the death penalty in the United States

The death penalty by lethal injection is a legal punishment in the United States. Sodium Thiopental, once used in the death penalty cocktail, is no longer available for use in the United States as a consequence of this association. Anesthesiologists possess knowledge of Sodium Thiopental and possible chemical alternatives. Further, lethal injection has the look and feel of a medical act thereby encouraging physician participation and comment. Concern has been raised that the death penalty by lethal injection, is cruel. Physicians are ethically directed to prevent cruelty within the doctor-patient relationship and ethically prohibited from participation in any component of the death penalty. The US Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty is not cruel per se and is not in conflict with the 8th amendment of the US constitution. If the death penalty is not cruel, it requires no further refinement. If, on the other hand, the death penalty is in fact cruel, physicians have no mandate outside of the doctor patient relationship to reduce cruelty. Any intervention in the name of cruelty reduction, in the setting of lethal injection, does not lead to a more humane form of punishment. If physicians contend that the death penalty can be botched, they wrongly direct that it can be improved. The death penalty cocktail, as a method to reduce suffering during execution, is an unverifiable claim. At best, anesthetics produce an outward appearance of calmness only and do not address suffering as a consequence of the anticipation of death on the part of the condemned.     

Juror Decision‐making in Death Penalty Sentencing when Presented with Defendant's History of Child Abuse or Neglect

Previous studies have found aggravating, mitigating, and null effects of defendant histories of abuse and neglect on punishment preferences in capital sentencing. Perceiving these defendants as more dangerous, jurors may be more likely to favor the death penalty when such evidence is presented. This is counter to the intuition that abuse or neglect reduces culpability, and therefore mitigates the severity of punishment. We investigated the effect of defendant childhood physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect on the probability of a prospective juror preferring the death penalty in an between‐subject experimental design. Using vignettes and two large samples (students and jurors), defendant histories were found to mitigate the probability that the hypothetical defendant received the death penalty, with sexual abuse having the most salient effect. Further, the effects were conditioned by preference for the death penalty – larger mitigating effects were observed among individuals who favor the death penalty. These findings suggest that initial judgments of abuse and neglect are related to juror leniency, and further research on the interaction of jury instructions and defendant histories is needed. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Testimony and interrogation of minors: assumptions about maturity and morality

This article examines the legal histories and social contexts of testimony and interrogation involving minors, developmental research on suggestibility and judgment, interactions between development and legal/sociological contexts, and the reasoning behind how minors are treated in different legal contexts. The authors argue (a) that young witnesses, victims, and suspects alike possess youthful characteristics that influence their ability to validly inform legal processes, some of which were recently recognized by the Supreme Court as they apply to the juvenile death penalty, and (b) that consideration should be given to reforming current practices in the context of juvenile interrogation. ((c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).     

Social Dominance Orientation and the Ideological Legitimization of Social Policy1

Much of politics is involved with the distribution of resources and the regulation of intergroup relations. Social dominance theory posits that social ideologies provide social justification for policies that have unequal effects on different social groups. In the present studies, we examine the mediating role that ideologies have in transforming people's general orientation toward group inequality into policy support. Using data from 5 samples, we offer evidence that social dominance orientation orients people to support discriminatory ideologies, which in turn influence support for policies. Support for the theoretical model was shown in studies of both long-standing social policy attitudes, such as toward social welfare and military programs, and of unfolding political events, including Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court, the Persian Gulf War, and reinstitution of the death penalty in California.     

The aftermath of Ford v. Wainwright

Whatever happened to Alvin Ford? This paper describes the aftermath of the Supreme Court's 1986 ruling in Ford v. Wainwright. The Ford decision held that exempting the mentally incompetent from execution is a matter of constitutional right, and hence the determination of who is competent for execution cannot be left solely in the hands of the executive branch of the government. We describe the hearing in Ford's case in federal district court that occurred after the Supreme Court's decision, the judge's ruling, and Ford's subsequent (and final) appeal. We conclude that despite the decision in Ford, it remains all but impossible for defense attorneys to prove that psychotic death row clients are incompetent for execution.     

The future of involuntary civil commitment in the U.S.A. after Kansas v. Hendricks

This article examines new sexual predator commitment laws enacted recently in the United States to civilly commit dangerous sex offenders after they have served their prison sentences. It then examines Kansas v. Hendricks, a Supreme Court case that upheld these laws as constitutionally permitted. The article next describes the broad parameters that demarcate the government's civil commitment authority identified by the Supreme Court in that case. The author concludes that Hendricks establishes that the state has expansive civil commitment power much greater than our previous understanding. The government may use civil commitment solely to protect the public from dangerous individuals without proving a medically recognized mental disorder, recent evidence of dangerousness, or a treatment purpose or possibility. Moreover, this quarantine system may be justified by proving the same unlawful behavior for which the individual has already been criminally punished.     

A National Survey of State Legislation defining mental retardation: implications for policy and practice after Atkins

In Atkins v. Virginia 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits executing offenders who are mentally retarded. Rather than adopting a uniform definition of mental retardation, the court charged each state with defining mental retardation in a manner that enforces the constitutional restriction. An unanswered question is how states define mental retardation after Atkins, which has implications for capital defendants and forensic evaluators who conduct capital mitigation evaluations. This project identified the statutory definitions of mental retardation in each state, and grouped the definitions based on consistency with accepted clinical criteria for mental retardation. Results show that definitions of mental retardation vary considerably by state. The large majority of states, both overall and specifically among death penalty states, use criteria for mental retardation that are not entirely consistent with accepted clinical standards. As such, it is not clear whether the majority of states are effectuating the intent of Atkins. The implications of these findings for both policy and practice are discussed.     

The impact of death qualification, belief in a just world, legal authoritarianism, and locus of control on venirepersons' evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of death qualification, belief in a just world (BJW), legal authoritarianism (RLAQ), and locus of control (LOC) on venirepersons' evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. 212 venirepersons from the 12th Judicial Circuit in Bradenton, FL, completed a booklet that contained the following: one question that measured their attitudes toward the death penalty; one question that categorized their death-qualification status; the BJW, LOC, and RLAQ scales; a summary of the guilt and penalty phases of a capital case; a 26-item measure that required participants to evaluate aggravators, nonstatutory mitigators, and statutory mitigators on a 6-point Likert scale; sentence preference; and standard demographic questions. Results indicated that death-qualified venirepersons were more likely to demonstrate higher endorsements of aggravating factors and lower endorsements of both nonstatutory and statutory mitigating factors. Death-qualified participants were also more likely to have a high belief in a just world, espouse legal authoritarian beliefs, and exhibit an internal locus of control. Findings also suggested that venirepersons with a low belief in a just world and an external locus of control demonstrated higher endorsements of statutory mitigators. Participants with legal authoritarian beliefs revealed higher endorsements of aggravators and lower endorsements of nonstatutory mitigators. Legal implications and applications are discussed.     

Effects of Eyewitness Evidence on Plea-Bargain Decisions by Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys1

The present experiment tested the relative impact of two types of eyewitness evidence (identification and non identification) on plea-bargain decisions by prosecutors and defense attorneys. A hypothetical case involving a robbery was mailed to three prosecutors and three defense attorneys in each of 47 states. The subjects were randomly assigned to receive a case in which an eyewitness claimed: (a) the defendant was the criminal (identification), (b) the defendant was not the criminal (non identification), or (c) it was not possible to tell whether the defendant was the criminal (control). Similar to findings with jurors, both prosecutors and defense attorneys underutilized the non identification information in making their plea-bargain decisions. In the case of the prosecutors, there was evidence that the underutilization of eyewitness non identification was at least partially mediated by the prosecutors' predictions of juror reaction to the evidence.     

Amicus Curiae Brief for the United States Supreme Court on Mental Health Issues Associated With “Physician‐Assisted Suicide”

After providing background material related to the Supreme Court cases on “physician‐assisted suicide” (Washington v. Glucksberg, 1997, and Vacco v. Quill, 1997), this article presents the amicus curiae brief that was submitted to the United States Supreme Court by 2 national mental health organizations, a state psychological association, and an ad hoc coalition of mental health professionals. The document focuses on the role mental health professionals can play in discussions about hastened death. In particular, it is asserted that mental health professionals can assess capacity the decision‐making process, and the role of coercion in such decisions. The effect of the brief on the Supreme Court and within the organizations involved is also discussed.     

Christianity and Opposition to the Death Penalty: Late Modern Shifts

This article sketches the shifts in Christian thought and denominations on capital punishment from the early church to today in the United States, and then examines the ethical issues in the administration of capital punishment both before and since the Supreme Count stopped executions in 1972. The conclusion of the article is that overwhelming evidence of the injustice of death sentences could not sway popular support for capital punishment, but evidence that switching to life sentences could save states millions of dollars is swaying many pro‐death penalty voters and legislators.     

An examination of the effects of mental disorders as mitigating factors on capital sentencing outcomes

Mentally ill and emotionally disturbed offenders comprise a significant component of those whose criminal conduct has swept them into the criminal justice system, including a subset who are tried and convicted of capital murder. The present study employs the population of capital cases advanced to penalty phase in the state of North Carolina (1990–2009) to examine whether presentation to the jury of the statutory mitigators of extreme mental and emotional disturbance and capacity impaired, and specific mental illness diagnoses, often referred to as mental disorders, at the sentencing phase mitigate against a sentence of death. Mental disorders included mood disorders, psychotic disorders, anxiety disorders, brain disorders, multiple mental illness diagnoses, learning disabilities, and personality disorders. Results from these 835 cases indicate that with the exception of one, the diagnosis of a learning disability, the capital jury's acceptance of various mental health conditions does not effectively mitigate against a capital sentence. In addition, jury rejection of a diagnosis of mental illness or the two mental health statutory mitigators, capacity impaired and extreme emotional disturbance, as a mitigating factor has a counter-mitigating effect in that it significantly increases the odds of a death penalty recommendation by about 85–200%.     

Gut Reactions: Moral Conviction, Religiosity, and Trust in Authority

ABSTRACT— Theory and research point to different ways moral conviction and religiosity connect to trust in political authorities to decide controversial issues of the day. Specifically, we predicted that stronger moral convictions would be associated with greater distrust in authorities such as the U.S. Supreme Court making the "right" decisions regarding controversial issues. Conversely, we predicted that stronger religiosity would be associated with greater trust in authorities. We tested these hypotheses using a survey of a nationally representative sample of Americans (N = 727) that assessed the degree to which people trusted the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the legal status of physician-assisted suicide. Results indicated that greater religiosity was associated with greater trust in the U.S. Supreme Court to decide this issue, and that stronger moral convictions about physician-assisted suicide were associated with greater distrust in the U.S. Supreme Court to decide this issue. Also, the processes underlying religious trust and distrust based on moral convictions were more quick and visceral than slow and carefully considered.     

The American Psychological Association's response to Brown v. Board of Education. The case of Kenneth B. Clark

In 1954, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court struck down the "separate but equal" doctrine of the Plessy v. Ferguson decision (1896) that was the foundation of school segregation in 17 states and the District of Columbia. Brown is arguably the most important Supreme Court decision of the 20th century in terms of its influence on American history. Moreover, it has a special significance for psychology because it marked the first time that psychological research was cited in a Supreme Court decision and because social science data were seen as paramount in the Court's decision to end school segregation. This article describes psychologist Kenneth B. Clark's role in that case and the response of the American Psychological Association to scientific psychology's moment in a great spotlight.