The Role of Death Qualification in Capital Trials Involving Juvenile Defendants1

The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of death qualification in capital trials involving juvenile defendants. Two hundred residents of the 12^th Judicial Circuit in Florida completed a booklet of stimulus materials that contained the following: One question that measured participants' level of support for the death penalty; One Witt death‐qualification question; a summary of the guilt and penalty phases of a capital case involving either an adult or a juvenile defendant; sentence preference; the Revised Legal Attitudes Questionnaire (RLAQ); and standard demographic questions. Results indicated that death‐qualified participants were more likely to sentence both defendants to death. In addition, death‐qualified participants were more likely to recommend the death sentence for the juvenile defendant. Legal implications are discussed.     

NGRI Revisited: Venirepersons' Attitudes Toward the Insanity Defense1

Three hundred venirepersons from the 12^th Judicial Circuit in Sarasota, Florida completed the following booklet of stimulus materials: one question measuring participants' level of support for insanity defense; a 16‐item measure assessing participants' attitudes toward the myths associated with the insanity defense, the legal definitions of insanity, and mental illness; a case scenario; verdict preference; and standard demographic questions. Level of support for the insanity defense was significantly related to participants' attitudes toward legal standards of insanity, mental illness, and the myths associated with the insanity defense. In addition, results indicated that level of support for the insanity defense, age, educational level, occupation, type of prior jury service, and political views were significantly related to verdict preference. Notably, three factors that have been found to impact verdict preference in previous research failed to do so in the current study: participants' experience with psychological disorders; participants' exposure to psychotropic medications; and participants' experience with psychologists or psychiatrists. The findings both replicate and extend earlier findings by suggesting that attitudes toward the insanity defense are more complex than previously imagined.     

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.     

The role of death qualification and need for cognition in venirepersons' evaluations of expert scientific testimony in capital trials

The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of death qualification in venirepersons' evaluations of expert scientific testimony in capital trials. 200 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 Need for Cognition (NFC) scale (Cacioppo, Petty & Kao, 1984); a summary of the guilt phase of a capital case (which included the cross-examination of the state's expert witness); verdict preference; five questions concerning participants' evaluations of the expert's testimony; the penalty phase of a capital case; sentence preference; and standard demographic questions. Results indicated that death-qualified venirepersons were more likely to demonstrate a low need for cognition and view ambiguous expert scientific testimony as valid, important in their decision-making processes, unbiased, and of high quality. Finally, death-qualified participants were more conviction- and death- prone than their excludable counterparts. Surprisingly, death-qualified and excludable jurors did not differ with respect to whether or not they felt that the expert followed correct procedures. Legal implications and applications are discussed.     

Death qualification and prejudice: the effect of implicit racism, sexism, and homophobia on capital defendants' right to due process

Two hundred venirepersons from the 12th Judicial Circuit in Bradenton, Florida completed the following measures: (1) one question that measured their level of support for the death penalty; (2) one question that categorized their death-qualification status; (3) 23 questions that measured their attitudes toward the death penalty (ATDP); (4) 22 questions that assessed their attitudes toward women (ATW); (5) 25 questions that measured their level of homophobia (H); (6) seven questions that assessed their level of modern racism (MR); (7) eight questions that measured their level of modern sexism (MS); and (8) standard demographic questions. Results indicated that as death-penalty support increased participants exhibited more positive attitudes toward the death penalty, more negative attitudes toward women, and higher levels of homophobia, modern racism, and modern sexism. Findings also suggested that death-qualified venirepersons exhibited more positive attitudes toward the death penalty and higher levels of homophobia, modern racism, and modern sexism. Finally, more positive attitudes toward the death penalty were correlated with more negative attitudes toward women and higher levels of homophobia, modern racism, and modern sexism. Legal implications are discussed.     

The Role of Death Qualification in Jurors' Susceptibility to Pretrial Publicity1

Two hundred residents of Florida's 12^th Judicial Circuit completed questions measuring participants' level of death-penalty support, death-qualification status, knowledge of the facts surrounding an actual capital case, and attitudes toward the defendant in the aforementioned capital case. Results indicated that death-qualified participants were better able to correctly identify the defendant, recognize most of the factual details of the case, think that the defendant was guilty, and recommend the death penalty. In addition, death-qualified jurors were more likely to feel that the pretrial publicity surrounding the case would have minimal impact on the defendant's right to due process. Legal applications and implications are discussed.     

Mock Juror Attribution of Criminal Responsibility: Effects of Race and the Guilty But Mentally III (GBMI) Verdict Option1

The present study examined three questions relevant to the insanity defense: Does the availability of the alternative verdict “Guilty But Mentally III” affect juror assessment of criminal responsibility? Does race of defendant significantly affect juror decision-making about who should be acquitted under the insanity defense? And does race of victim significantly influence how jurors decide their final insanity defense verdicts? Race of defendant (black or white), race of victim (black or white), and verdict choice set [(Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI), Guilty, and Not Guilty) vs. (Guilty but Mentally III (GBMI), NGRI, Guilty, and Not Guilty)] were systematically varied. The mock-trial was presented to 197 college student subjects by means of an audiotape and slide show. Following the re-enacted trial, subjects answered a series of questions regarding the case. The main dependent variable was the rendered verdict. Both χ²loglinear analyses revealed a significant relationship between race of defendant and verdict such that the defendant, when presented as black, was acquitted NGRI significantly more often than when the defendant was presented as white. No significant effects were found for race of victim. The availability of the GBMI verdict option resulted in a twofold effect: There was a two-thirds reduction in both NGRI and straight guilty verdicts when the GBMI verdict option was made available. The implications for legal policy and future research are discussed.     

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.     

Psychiatric prediction of dangerousness in capital sentencing: The quest for innocent authority

Eight states require the sentencer in a capital case to consider directly the question of whether a criminal defendant would pose a danger to the community in the long term. Although all available psychiatric evidence indicates that psychiatrists cannot make accurate predictions of criminal defendants' future dangerousness, sentencers rely heavily upon clinicians' predictions of long-term future dangerousness when imposing the death penalty. Legislatures and courts accept psychiatrists' predictions of dangerousness by relying on an elaborate “subterfuge” which uses powerful emotional influences to cover up painful conflicts of values and to satisfy society's desire for simultaneous innocence and authority.     

The mental illness defense in the capital penalty hearing

Several defense strategies are available to the capital defendant who is arguing for life in the penalty phase, including a mental illness (MI) defense. An MI defense presents psychiatric testimony to the effect that the defendant was mentally disturbed at the time of the offense and, therefore, should not be held completely responsible. The few studies available suggest that an MI defense will be ineffective because (1) death-qualified jurors do not respond favorably to purely psychological explanations of criminal behavior and (2) an MI defense may erroneously mislead the jury regarding the defendant's unpredictability and dangerousness. Analagous studies of insanity acquittals suggest certain factors that may be associated with a succesful MI defense.     

Ethnicity of Defendants and Jurors as Influences on Jury Decisions1

To assess the influence of ethnicity on jury decisions, 480 subjects viewed a videotaped trial of an Anglo or Hispanic defendant. Anglo or Hispanic majority 6-person juries deliberated until a unanimous verdict was reached. The juries that convicted the defendant were asked to determine sentence length and to provide a probation/ parole recommendation. Anglo majority juries convicted the defendant significantly more (M= 79%) than did the Hispanic majority juries (M= 52%), x²= 5.45, p < 0.02. No main effect of defendant ethnicity was obtained, but there was an interaction between the defendant and the jury's ethnicity, x²= 5.41, p < 0.02. Anglo majority juries were more lenient with the Anglo defendant, but the Hispanic majority juries did not differ in their conviction rates. No significant effects were obtained for sentence length. Differences in probation/parole recommendations were a function of jury ethnicity, F(l, 15) = 4.74, p < 0.05. Anglos were more likely to recommend that the defendant serve the full term of the sentence. These results are interpreted in terms of stereotyping and are discussed regarding their implications for a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial.     

Use of the insanity defense: A survey of attorneys in wyoming

Attorneys in the State of Wyoming were surveyed to determine their reported use of the insanity defense during the preceding 5 years. They were asked about the success, defined as “benefit to the defendant,” of the insanity defense at various stages that occur before trial. The attorneys reported that the insanity defense is used throughout the various stages preceding trial, with more use and benefit to the defendant being reported than previously suggested. This was particularly true for the earlier stages in the criminal justice process. The attorneys were also asked various attitude questions related to the insanity defense. Defense lawyers were more in from of the insanity defense and expressed attitudes that supported the insanity defense while prosecuting attorneys were relatively more opposed to the insanity defense and expressed attitudes consistent with this view.     

Jurors' locus of control and defendants' attractiveness in death penalty sentencing

The authors examined the relationship between jurors' locus of control and defendants' attractiveness in death penalty sentencing. Ninety-eight participants voluntarily served as mock jurors. The authors administered J. B. Rotter's (1966) Internal-External Locus of Control Scale to participants and then randomly assigned them to a group with either an attractive or an unattractive defendant (represented by photographs). Participants read a murder vignette and selected a punishment--either a lifetime jail sentence or the death penalty-for the defendant. Results indicated that neither jurors' locus of control nor defendants' attractiveness influenced sentencing. However, jurors' age and gender significantly influenced sentencing. Men, with the exception of the youngest men, were more likely than women to choose the death penalty. Additionally, young women were more likely than older women to select the death penalty. The authors discuss the implications of these results for the study of jury behavior and bias.     

Socioscientific evidence and supreme court numerology: When justices attempt social science

In Stanford v. Kentucky, in which two juveniles sentenced to death raised an Eighth Amendment challenge, Justice Scalia's plurality opinion set the ground rules for deciding juvenile death penalty cases. He ruled ?socioscientific”? evidence and philosopher-king decisions out of bounds. Scalia argued that the Court must do its own social science analysis of the objective indicia to gauge whether community sentiment finds such a punishment cruel and unusual. In determining whether a ?national consensus”? exists, Justice Scalia transformed the empirical question into an impossible question, requiring that a categorical aversion must be shown. Petitioners lost, but so too did social science jurisprudence, as ?statistical magic”? and ?numerology”? reigned supreme.     

Racial Attitudes and the Death Penalty1

This study investigated the relationship between overt and subtle forms of racism with Whites' recommendations for capital sentencing of Black and White offenders convicted of murder. White participants (n= 104) viewed 5 other “jurors” (all Whites or 4 Whites and 1 Black) on videotape individually presenting their decisions to vote for the death penalty in the case. It was hypothesized that the bias of high prejudice-scoring participants would be overt, but that the pattern for low prejudice-scoring participants would be more complex. As predicted, among high prejudice-scoring participants, Black defendants received stronger recommendations for the death penalty than did White defendants. Among low prejudice-scoring White participants, Black offenders received stronger recommendations for the death penalty only when a Black juror advocated the death penalty.     

Child‐Witness and Defendant Credibility: Child Evidence Presentation Mode and Judicial Instructions1

Child‐witness presentation mode, judicial instructions, and deliberation stage effects on juror ratings of child witness and defendant were investigated Perceptions of the impact of presentation mode on witnesses, juror task, and justice also were explored. Participants (N= 108) viewed a simulated child sexual abuse trial videotape. Overall child‐witness credibility was significantly more positive with videodeposition or court‐given child evidence than with videolink. The defendant was seen as more definitely guilty when child testimony was court given than by videodeposition or videolink. Presentation mode also significantly influenced perceived impact on child witness, defendant case, and juror task. Judicial instructions interacted with presentation mode to affect perceptions of impact on child witness and juror task. Findings are discussed in relation to previous research, and implications for future research and practice are outlined.     

Florida after the furman decision: The effect of extralegal factors on the processing of capital offense cases

This study investigated the existence of discrimination in the imposition of the death penalty in Florida after the Furman decision of 1972. The purpose of the study was to examine the differential effect of the race and sex of the defendant and the victim on the trial outcome, conviction offense and imposition of the death penalty. Differential treatment was apparent in each of the legal events examined. The results indicate that Florida's post-Furman statute has been unsuccessful in eliminating differential treatment of offenders from the imposition of the death penalty.     

Death penalty mitigation and cult membership: The case of the Kirtland killings

When cult activities precipitate violence against others, the interface of religious belief and practice, and law becomes complex. Personal and group psychological factors can assume importance not only to explain the crimes, but also in the processing of cases, particularly where a death penalty/mitigation trial is involved. While destructive cult membership has not been accepted in the legal system as a basis for an insanity plea, mitigation from the death penalty or other reduced responsibility outcomes can be justified and was effective in defence of Kirtland cult members. Outcomes in the Kirtland case reflected statutory requirements and procedural operations in complex constellations with roughly proportionate results. The paper details specifics of the case, defense strategies, prosecutorial functions, and religious and psychological underpinnings which led into acts for which neither religious freedom nor psychological disturbance could exempt from Penalty.