Creating the Punishment Orientation Questionnaire: An Item Response Theory Approach

The purpose of these studies was to examine the principles people engage in when thinking about punishment, using a new measure (the Punishment Orientation Questionnaire [POQ]). Although traditional conceptualizations of punishment divide it into utilitarianism (e.g., deterrence) and retributivism (“eye for an eye”), we argue that a more useful metric of lay attitudes concerns orientation toward or away from punishment. After pilot testing and factor analysis, we used item response theory to assess four scales: prohibitive utilitarianism (limiting punishment based on utility), prohibitive retributivism (aversion to punishing innocent people), permissive utilitarianism (willingness to give strict punishment based on the benefits thereof), and permissive retributivism (desire for just deserts). The POQ showed good predictive validity for capital jury eligibility and sentencing recommendation in response to a death penalty trial stimulus. This study provides a better understanding of how classic punishment philosophies manifest among laypersons and contributes data outside of classical test theory.

Diminishing Support for the Death Penalty

This chapter presents and analyzes the current state of law and research on the capital jury. First, it presents the legal framework for capital jury selection and research on the “death-qualified” jury, whose members are eligible to serve in a capital case. It also discusses research showing that the death-qualification process skews the composition of the capital jury so that it fails to represent the community and is more conviction-prone. Next, the chapter considers the contemporary death penalty in the United States, noting the challenge that comes from declining support for capital punishment and the need to select representative capital juries. The chapter concludes by discussing the implications of the current trends in support for the death penalty and research on capital juries.

Distrust and Empathy: Explaining the Lack of Support for Capital Punishment Among Minorities

Public opinion polls show that the majority of people in the United States support capital punishment but that is because the majority of White Americans support it. Research on the opinions of non-Whites consistently finds less support. We examine racial and ethnic differences among people who actually had to decide whether to impose the death penalty, former capital jurors, and hypothesize that lower support among non-Whites can be explained by the fact that non-Whites are more likely to distrust the criminal justice system and more likely to show empathy for the defendant in a capital case, net of defendant and victim race. Using data from the Capital Jury Project, we find support for this hypothesis in a mediating relationship between race and sentencing vote. Black and Hispanic jurors are more likely to report distrust of the capital process and higher levels of empathy for the defendant, both of which lower the probability of a death vote during the sentencing phase of the trial. We discuss the implications for research, trial strategy, and the future of capital punishment in light of these findings.