scholarly journals The PCL–R and capital sentencing: A commentary on “Death is different” DeMatteo et al. (2020a).

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 519-522
Author(s):  
Robert D. Hare ◽  
Mark E. Olver ◽  
Keira C. Stockdale ◽  
Craig S. Neumann ◽  
Andreas Mokros ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melinda Wolbransky ◽  
Michael E. Keesler ◽  
Pamela Laughon ◽  
David DeMatteo

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Stephen D. Hart ◽  
Kirk Heilbrun ◽  
Marcus T. Boccaccini ◽  
Mark D. Cunningham ◽  
...  

1983 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 407-428
Author(s):  
Charles P. Ewing

AbstractPsychiatric and psychological predictions of dangerousness are used in a number of American jurisdictions to convince a judge or jury that a convicted murderer should be sentenced to death. Empirical research has demonstrated, however, that psychiatric and psychological predictions of dangerousness generally are inaccurate. This Article describes the current use of such predictions in capital sentencing hearings and examines their status under existing professional codes of ethics. It argues that the rendering of these predictions by psychiatrists and psychologists is contrary to the scientific and healing traditions of their professions and urges psychiatrists and psychologists to adopt an ethical ban on predictions of dangerousness in the capital sentencing context.


Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Daniel C. Murrie ◽  
Natalie M. Anumba ◽  
Michael E. Keesler

1998 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 412-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Frank ◽  
Brandon K. Applegate

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document