Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:24:30.735Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

29 - Choosing Between Life and Death

Capital Jury Penalty Phase Decision-Making

from Part IV - Postconviction Phase Decisions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2024

By
Craig Haney
Edited by
Monica K. Miller ,
Logan A. Yelderman ,
Matthew T. Huss  and
Jason A. Cantone
Monica K. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno
Logan A. Yelderman
Affiliation:
Prairie View A & M University, Texas
Matthew T. Huss
Affiliation:
Creighton University, Omaha
Jason A. Cantone
Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia
Get access

Summary

This chapter addresses the various legal and psychological factors that affect the decision-making process by which capital jurors reach penalty phase verdicts. Capital jury trials are unique in a number of respects, including the fact that jurors are selected through a special process of “death qualification,” consider a wide range of evidence that would otherwise be excluded in the typical criminal case, and, in the final analysis, must make the morally daunting decision of whether someone lives or dies. Social science research has documented the way that the very process of selecting a jury can affect capital jury decision-making processes, whether and how jurors consider the full range of evidence that is presented to them, the various ways that stereotypes, heuristics, and attributions might bias the sentencing verdicts ultimately rendered, and the “morally disengaging” aspects of the capital trial itself. Future research and policy implications are discussed.

Keywords

capital jury decision-makingdeath sentencingcapital punishmentdeath qualificationverdicts
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 443 - 459
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, M., Mabry, E., & McKelton, D. (1998). Impact of juror attitudes about the death penalty on juror evaluations of guilt and punishment: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 22(6), 715–731. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025763008533.Google Scholar
Alvarez, M., & Miller, M. (2017). How defendants’ legal status and ethnicity and participants political orientation relate to death penalty sentencing decisions. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3(3), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000128.Google Scholar
Antonio, M. (2006). Arbitrariness and the death penalty: How the defendant’s appearance during trial influences capital jurors’ punishment decisions. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 24(2), 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.673.Google Scholar
Atiq, E., & Miller, E. (2018). The limits of law in the evaluation of mitigating evidence. Journal of Criminal Law, 45(1), 167–201.Google Scholar
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 US 304 (2002).Google Scholar
Bakhshay, S., & Haney, C. (2018). The media’s impact on the right to a fair trial: A content analysis of pretrial publicity in capital cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(3), 326–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000174.Google Scholar
Barner, J. (2014). Life or death decision making: Qualitative analysis of death penalty jurors. Qualitative Social Work, 13(6), 842–858. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325013507304.Google Scholar
Barnett, M., Brodsky, S., & Davis, C. (2004). When mitigation evidence makes a difference: Effects of psychological mitigating evidence in sentencing decisions in capital trials. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22(6), 751–770. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.591.Google Scholar
Barnett, M., Brodsky, S., & Price, J. (2007). Differential impact of mitigating evidence in capital sentencing. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7(1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1300/J158v07n01_04.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F., De Boef, S., & Boydstun, A. (2008). The decline of the death penalty and the discovery of innocence. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bell Holleran, L., Vaughan, T., & Vandiver, D. (2016). Juror decision-making in death penalty sentencing when presented with defendant’s history of child abuse or neglect. Behavior Sciences and the Law, 34(6), 742–766. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2271.Google Scholar
Bowers, W. (1995). The Capital Jury Project: Rationale, design, and preview of early findings. Indiana Law Journal, 70(4), 1043–1102.Google Scholar
Bowers, W., & Foglia, W. (2003). Still singularly agonizing: Law’s failure to purge arbitrariness from capital sentencing. Criminal Law Bulletin, 39(1), 51–86.Google Scholar
Bowers, W., Sandys, M., & Steiner, B. (1998). Foreclosed impartiality in capital sentencing: Jurors’ predispositions, guilt-trial experience, and premature decision making. Cornell Law Review, 83(6), 1476–1556.Google Scholar
Bowers, W., Steiner, B., & Sandys, M. (2001). Death sentencing in Black and White: An empirical analysis of the role of jurors’ race and jury racial composition. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 3(1), 171–274.Google Scholar
Brewer, T. (2004). Race and jurors’ receptivity to mitigation in capital cases: The effect of jurors’, defendants’, and victims’ race in combination. Law and Human Behavior, 28(5), 529–545. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000046432.41928.2b.Google Scholar
Bronson, E. (1970). On the conviction proneness and unrepresentativeness of the death-qualified jury: A study of Colorado veniremen. University of Colorado Law Review, 42(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
Butler, B. (2007a). Death qualification and prejudice: The effect of implicit racism, sexism, and homophobia on capital defendants’ right to due process. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25(6), 857–867. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.791.Google Scholar
Butler, B. (2007b). The role of death qualification in jurors’ susceptibility to pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(1), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2007.00150.x.Google Scholar
Butler, B. (2008) The role of death qualification in venirepersons’ susceptibility to victim impact statements. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160701483534.Google Scholar
Butler, B. & Moran, G. (2002). The role of death qualification in venirepersons perceptions of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law and Human Behavior 26(2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014640025871.Google Scholar
Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 US 320 (1985).Google Scholar
California v. Brown, 479 US 538 (1987).Google Scholar
Cho, S. (1994) Capital confusion: The effect of jury instructions on the decision to impose death. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85(2), 532–561.Google Scholar
Cochran, J., & Chamlin, M. (2006). The enduring racial divide in death penalty support. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(1), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2005.11.007.Google Scholar
Conley, R. (2013). Living with the decision that someone will die: Linguistic distance and empathy in jurors’ death penalty decisions. Language in Society, 42(5), 503–526. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740451300064X.Google Scholar
Cowan, C., Thompson, W., & Ellsworth, P. (1984). The effects of death qualification on jurors’ predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 8(1–2), 53–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044351.Google Scholar
Devine, D., & Kelly, C. (2015). Life or death: An examination of jury sentencing with the Capital Jury Project database. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(4), 393–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000060.Google Scholar
Dutton, D., & Hart, S. (1992) Evidence for long-term, specific effects of childhood abuse and neglect on criminal behavior in men, International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 36, 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X9203600205.Google Scholar
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 US 104 (1982).Google Scholar
Eisenberg, T., & Wells, M. (1993). Deadly confusion: Juror instructions in capital cases. Cornell Law Review, 79(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Espinoza, W., & Willis-Esqueda, C. (2015). The influence of mitigation evidence, ethnicity, and SES on death penalty decisions by European American and Latino venirepersons. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(2), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037646.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, R., & Ellsworth, P. (1984). Due process vs. crime control: Death qualification and jury attitudes. Law and Human Behavior, 8(1–2), 31–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044350.Google Scholar
Furman v. Georgia, 408 US 238 (1972).Google Scholar
Gasperetti, M. (2022). Crime and punishment: An empirical study of the effects of racial bias on capital sentencing decisions. University of Miami Law Review, 76(2), 525–611.Google Scholar
Gillespie, L., Smith, M., Bjerregaard, B., & Fogel, S. (2014). Examining the impact of proximate culpability mitigation in capital punishment sentencing recommendations: The influence of mental health mitigators. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(4), 698–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9255-5.Google Scholar
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 US 153 (1976).Google Scholar
Haney, C. (Ed.) (1984a). Special Issue on death qualification. Law & Human Behavior, 8, 1–195.Google Scholar
Haney, C. (1984b). On the selection of capital juries: The biasing effects of the death qualification process. Law and Human Behavior, 8(1–2), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044355.Google Scholar
Haney, C. (1984c). Examining death qualification: Further analysis of the process effect. Law and Human Behavior, 8(1–2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044356.Google Scholar
Haney, C. (1995). The social context of capital murder: Social histories and the logic of capital mitigation. Santa Clara Law Review, 35(2), 547–609.Google Scholar
Haney, C. (1997). Violence and the capital jury: Mechanisms of moral disengagement and the impulse to condemn to death. Stanford Law Review, 49(6), 1447–1486.Google Scholar
Haney, C. (2004). Condemning the other in death penalty trials: Biographical racism, structural mitigation, and the empathic divide. DePaul Law Review, 53(4), 1557–1590.Google Scholar
Haney, C. (2005). Death by design: Capital punishment as a social psychological system. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haney, C. (2006). Exoneration and wrongful condemnations: Expanding the zone of perceived injustice in capital cases. Golden Gate Law Review, 37(1), 131–173.Google Scholar
Haney, C. (2008a). Evolving standards of decency: Advancing the nature and logic of capital mitigation. Hofstra Law Review, 36(3), 835–882.Google Scholar
Haney, C. (2008b). Media criminology and the death penalty. DePaul Law Review, 58(3), 689–740.Google Scholar
Haney, C. (2020). Criminality in context: the psychological foundations of criminal justice reform. APA Books.Google Scholar
Haney, C. (2009). On mitigation as counter-narrative: A case study of the hidden context of prison violence. University of Missouri–Kansas City Law Review, 77(4), 911–946.Google Scholar
Haney, C., Hurtado, A., & Vega, L. (1994). “Modern” death qualification. Law and Human Behavior, 18(6), 619–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499328.Google Scholar
Haney, C., & Lynch, M. (1994). Comprehending life and death matters: A preliminary study of California’s capital penalty instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 18(4), 411–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499048.Google Scholar
Haney, C., Sontag, L., & Costanzo, S. (1994). Deciding to take a life: Capital juries, sentencing instructions, and the jurisprudence of death. Journal of Social Issues, 50(2), 149–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02414.x.Google Scholar
Haney, C., Zurbriggen, E., & Weill, J. (2022). The continuing unfairness of death qualification: Changing death penalty attitudes and capital jury selection. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 28(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000335.Google Scholar
Holbert, R., Shah, D., & Kwak, N. (2004). Fear, authority, and justice: Crime-related viewing and endorsements of capital punishment and gun ownership. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(2), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900408100208.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. (2008). Racial prejudice, perceived injustice, and the Black–White gap in punitive attitudes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2008.02.009.Google Scholar
Kadane, J. (1984). After Hovey: A note on taking account of the automatic death penalty jurors. Law and Human Behavior, 8(1–2), 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044354.Google Scholar
Kort-Butler, L. A. and Hartshorn, K. J. S. (2011). Watching the detectives: Crime programming, fear of crime, and attitudes about the criminal justice system. Sociological Quarterly, 52(1), 36–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2010.01191.x.Google Scholar
Lockett v. Ohio, 438 US 586 (1978).Google Scholar
Lockhart v. McCree, 476 US 162 (1986).Google Scholar
Luginbuhl, J., & Howe, J. (1995). Discretion in capital sentencing instructions: Guided or misguided? Indiana Law Review, 70, 1161–1181.Google Scholar
Luginbuhl, J., & Middendorf, K. (1988). Death penalty beliefs and jurors’ responses to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law and Human Behavior, 12(3), 263–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044384.Google Scholar
Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2000). Discrimination and instructional comprehension: Guided discretion, racial bias, and the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior, 24(3), 337–358. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005588221761.Google Scholar
Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2009). Capital jury deliberation: Effects on death sentencing, comprehension, and discrimination. Law and Human Behavior, 33(6), 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9168-2.Google Scholar
Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2018). Death qualification in black and white: Racialized decision-making and death-qualified juries. Law & Policy, 40(2), 148–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12099.Google Scholar
McCord, D. (2005). Lightening still strikes: Evidence from the popular press that death sentencing continues to be unconstitutionally arbitrary more than three decades after Furman. Brooklyn Law Review, 71(2), 797–870.Google Scholar
Miley, L., Heiss-Moses, E., Cochran, J., et al. (2020). An examination of the effects of mental disorders as mitigating factors in sentencing outcomes. Behavioral Sciences & and the Law, 38(4), 381–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2477.Google Scholar
Miller, M., & Bornstein, B. (2006). The use of religion in death penalty sentencing trials. Law and Human Behavior, 30(6), 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9056-6.Google Scholar
Moran, G., & Cutler, B. (1991). The prejudicial impact of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(5), 345–367.Google Scholar
Morgan v. Illinois, 504 US 719 (1993).Google Scholar
O’Neil, K., Patry, M., & Penrod, S. (2004). Exploring the effects of attitudes toward the death penalty on capital sentencing verdicts. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 10(4), 443–470. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.443.Google Scholar
Osofsky, M., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. (2005). The role of moral disengagement in the execution process. Law and Human Behavior, 29(4), 374–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-4930-1.Google Scholar
Patry, M., & Penrod, S. (2013). Death penalty decisions: Instruction comprehension, attitudes, and decision mediators. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 13(3), 204–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2013.795816.Google Scholar
Ring v. Arizona, 586 US 584 (2002).Google Scholar
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 US 374 (2005).Google Scholar
Roper v. Simmons, 543 US 551 (2005).Google Scholar
Rose, M., & Rountree, M. (2021). The focal concerns of jurors evaluating mitigation: Evidence from federal capital jury forms. Law & Society Review, 56(2), 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12602.Google Scholar
Sampson, J., & Laub, J. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sandys, M. & Chermak, C. (1996). A journey into the unknown: Pretrial publicity and capital cases. Communication, Law and Policy, 1(4), 533–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/10811689609368615.Google Scholar
Semeraro, S. (2002). Responsibility in capital sentencing. San Diego Law Review, 39(1), 79–150.Google Scholar
Slater, M., Rouner, D., & Long, M. (2006). Television dramas and support for controversial public policies: Effects and mechanisms. Journal of Communication, 56(2), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00017.x.Google Scholar
Smith, A., & Haney, C. (2011). Getting to the point: Attempting to improve juror comprehension of capital penalty phase instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 35(5), 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9246-0.Google Scholar
Soss, J., Langbein, L., & Metelko, A. (2003). Why do White Americans support the death penalty? Journal of Politics, 65(2), 397–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-2-00006.Google Scholar
Stetler, R. (2018). The past, present, and future of the mitigation profession: Fulfilling the constitutional requirement of individualized sentencing in capital cases. Hofstra Law Review, 46(4), 1161–1247.Google Scholar
Stetler, R. (2021). Death penalty keynote: Why mitigation matters, now and for the future. Santa Clara Law Review, 61(3), 699–743.Google Scholar
Sundby, S. (2003). Capital jury and empathy: The problem of worthy and unworthy victims. Cornell Law Review, 88(2), 343–381.Google Scholar
Thompson, W., Cowan, C., Ellsworth, P., & Harrington, J. (1984). Death penalty attitudes and conviction proneness: The translation of attitudes into verdicts. Law and Human Behavior 8(1–2), 85–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044353.Google Scholar
Unnever, J., & Cullen, F. (2007). Reassessing the racial divide in support for capital punishment: The continuing significance of race. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44, 124–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427806295837.Google Scholar
Vitriol, J., & Kovera, M. (2018). Exposure to capital voir dire may not increase convictions despite increasing pretrial presumption of guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 42(5), 472–483. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000304.Google Scholar
Wainwright v. Witt, 460 US 412 (1985).Google Scholar
West, M., Wood, E., Miller, M., & Bornstein, B. (2021). How mock jurors’ cognitive processing and defendants’ immigrant status and ethnicity relate to decisions in capital trials. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 17, 423–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-020-09411-4.Google Scholar
Wiggins v. Smith, 539 US 510 (2003).Google Scholar
Wiener, R. L., Pritchard, C. C., & Weston, M. (1995). Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.455.Google Scholar
Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 US 510 (1968).Google Scholar
Wu, S. (2022). The effect of wrongful conviction rate on death penalty support and how it closes the racial gap. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 47, 1006–1024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-021-09637-6.Google Scholar
Yelderman, L., West, M., & Miller, M. (2019). Death penalty decision-making: Fundamentalist beliefs and the evaluation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 24(1), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12141.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×