The Death Penalty Trial: How Jury Sentencing Decisions Relate to Capital Sentencing Procedures

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melinda Wolbransky ◽  
Michael E. Keesler ◽  
Pamela Laughon ◽  
David DeMatteo
Keyword(s):  
Death Penalty ◽  
Capital Sentencing ◽  
Sentencing Decisions

Assessing Juror Understanding of Capital-Sentencing Instructions

1998 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 412-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Frank ◽  
Brandon K. Applegate
Keyword(s):  
Death Penalty ◽  
Capital Sentencing ◽  
Legal Policy ◽  
Capital Cases ◽  
Jury Duty ◽  
State Death ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Midwestern City

Although recent research has suggested that juror understanding of sentencing instructions in capital cases is limited, jurors in most states retain responsibility for determining whether a defendant receives the death penalty. Using data collected from 258 individuals who were called for jury duty in a midwestern city, the present study demonstrates that (1) jurors' comprehension of sentencing instructions is limited, (2) the particular areas of misunderstanding tend to place the defendant at a disadvantage, (3) juror understanding can be improved by rewriting state death penalty pattern instructions, and (4) comprehension levels also may be increased by providing jurors with a written copy of the instructions. Unfortunately, the effects that this research may have on legal policy are unclear.

Death Penalty Disposition in China: What Matters?

2016 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 253-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yudu Li ◽  
Dennis Longmire ◽  
Hong Lu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
The United States ◽  
Death Sentence ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Sentencing Decisions ◽  
Significant Relationships ◽  
Death Sentences ◽  
Capital Cases ◽  
Using Data

In theory, sentencing decisions should be driven by legal factors, not extra-legal factors. However, some empirical research on the death penalty in the United States shows significant relationships between offender and victim characteristics and death sentence decisions. Despite the fact that China frequently imposes death sentences, few studies have examined these sanctions to see if similar correlations occur in China’s capital cases. Using data from published court cases in China involving three violent crimes—homicide, robbery, and intentional assault—this study examines the net impact of offender’s gender, race, and victim–offender relationship on death sentence decisions in China. Our overall multiple regression results indicate that, after controlling for other legal and extra-legal variables, an offender’s gender, race, and victim–offender relationship did not produce similar results in China when compared with those in the United States. In contrast, it is the legal factors that played the most significant role in influencing the death penalty decisions. The article concludes with explanations and speculations on the unique social, cultural, and legal conditions in China that may have contributed to these correlations.

scholarly journals Capital Sentencing: The Effect of Adding Aggravators to Death Penalty Statutes in Pennsylvania

2004 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Schultz Newman ◽  
Eric Rayz ◽  
Scott Eric Friedman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Statistical Study ◽  
The United States ◽  
Capital Sentencing ◽  
Detailed History ◽  
Current State ◽  
History Of

The birthplace of the American republic—the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania—has historically been at the forefront of the capital punishment legislation in the United States. It was the first colony in the Union to abolish the death penalty for all crimes with the exception of murder. It was the first to set forth a statutory distinction between different degrees of criminal homicide, confining imposition of capital punishment to the most chilling form of this crime—“willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing.” With this storied history in mind, we have undertaken the task of examining the current state of the death penalty in the Commonwealth. Hence, in Part II of this Article, we set forth a detailed history of the capital sentencing scheme in Pennsylvania. Part III undertakes a statistical study of the imposition of the death penalty in the Commonwealth from 1978 until 1997. In Part IV, we conclude by summing up our general observations.

The effects of mortality salience and evidence strength on death penalty sentencing decisions

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 199-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel D. Lieberman ◽  
Jared Shoemaker ◽  
Daniel A. Krauss
Keyword(s):  
Death Penalty ◽  
Mortality Salience ◽  
Sentencing Decisions ◽  
Evidence Strength

Is There Such a Thing as “Future Dangerousness”? Examining Capital Sentencing Jurisprudence in India After Anil Anthony

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 200-222
Author(s):  
Megha Hemant Mehta
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
The United States ◽  
Death Sentence ◽  
Capital Sentencing ◽  
Future Dangerousness ◽  
Supreme Court Of India ◽  
The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, listed “future dangerousness” of the accused as one of the factors the court must consider when awarding the death sentence. The burden of proof lies on the State to prove the same. This standard has been inconsistently applied in Indian capital sentencing jurisprudence. In Anil Anthony, the most recent decision on this issue, the Supreme Court held that determination of future dangerousness cannot be based on the facts of the case. However, in earlier decisions such as Gurdev Singh, the court concluded that the brutality of the crime ruled out the possibility of reform. This article argues, drawing on a comparative analysis with the United States, that though future dangerousness is an inevitable “fact in issue” for judges, the evidence that may be adduced does not meet the standards required for the imposition of the death penalty. Thus, future dangerousness as a determining factor during sentencing is a ground for challenging the constitutionality of the death penalty itself. In the interim, Anil Anthony is a better standard to apply, as compared to both Bachan Singh and Gurdev Singh, in principle as well as in practice.

scholarly journals Likeability and Expert Persuasion: Dislikeability Reduces the Perceived Persuasiveness of Expert Evidence

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariam Younan ◽  
Kristy A. Martire
Keyword(s):  
Death Penalty ◽  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Sentencing Decisions ◽  
Evidence Quality ◽  
Quality Evidence ◽  
Sentencing Outcomes

With the use of expert evidence increasing in civil and criminal trials, there is concern jurors' decisions are affected by factors that are irrelevant to the quality of the expert opinion. Past research suggests that the likeability of an expert significantly affects juror attributions of credibility and merit. However, we know little about the effects of expert likeability when detailed information about expertise is provided. Two studies examined the effect of an expert's likeability on the persuasiveness judgments and sentencing decisions of 456 jury-eligible respondents. Participants viewed and/or read an expert's testimony (lower vs. higher quality) before rating expert persuasiveness (via credibility, value, and weight), and making a sentencing decision in a Capitol murder case (death penalty vs. life in prison). Lower quality evidence was significantly less persuasive than higher quality evidence. Less likeable experts were also significantly less persuasive than either neutral or more likeable experts. This “penalty” for less likeable experts was observed irrespective of evidence quality. However, only perceptions of the foundational validity of the expert's discipline, the expert's trustworthiness and the clarity and conservativeness of the expert opinion significantly predicted sentencing decisions. Thus, the present study demonstrates that while likeability does influence persuasiveness, it does not necessarily affect sentencing outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document