The role of death qualification in venirepersons' evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 175-184

  Butler, Brooke M ^a   Moran, Gary ^a  

^a FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CRIME; DEATH; DECISION MAKING; GUILT; HUMAN; LAWYER; LEGAL ASPECT; PUNISHMENT; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES; ADULT; ATTITUDE; FEMALE; HOMICIDE; MALE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT;

ADULT; ATTITUDE; CAPITAL PUNISHMENT; FEMALE; FLORIDA; HOMICIDE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS;

EID: 0036546837     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1014640025871     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Bersoff, D. N. (1987). In the Supreme Court of the United States: Lockhart v. McCree. American Psychologist, 42(1), 59-68.
2. Cowan, C. L., Thompson, W. C., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). The effects of death qualification on jurors' predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 53-79.
3. Diamond, S. S. (1993). Instructing on death: Psychologist, juries, and judges. American Psychologist, 48, 423-434.
4. Dillehay, R. C., & Sandys, M. R. (1996). Life under Wainwright v. Witt: Juror dispositions and death qualification. Law and Human Behavior, 20(2), 147-165.
5. Fitzgerald, R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). Due process vs. crime control: Death qualification and jury attitudes. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 31-51.
6. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
7. Haney, C. (1984a). On the selection of capital juries: The biasing effects of death qualification. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 121-132.
8. Haney, C. (1984b). Examining death qualification: Further analysis of the process effect. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 133-151.
9. Haney, C., Hurtado, A., & Vega, L. (1994). "Modern" death qualification: New data on its biasing effects. Law and Human Behavior, 18(6), 619-633.
10. Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978).
11. Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986).
12. Luginbuhl, J. (1992). Comprehension of judges' instructions in the penalty phase of a capital trial: Focus on mitigating circumstances. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 203-218.
13. 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.
14. Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2000). Discrimination and instructional comprehension: Guided discretion, racial bias, and the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 337-358.
15. Moran, G. & Comfort, J. C. (1986). Neither "tentative" nor "fragmentary": Verdict preference of impaneled felony jurors as a function of attitude toward capital punishment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 146-155.
16. Robinson, R. J. (1993). What does "unwilling to impose the death penalty mean anyway? Another look at excludable jurors. Law and Human Behavior, 17(4), 471-477.
17. Thompson, W. C., Cowan, C. L., Ellsworth, P. C., & Harrington, J. C. (1984). Death penalty attitudes and conviction proneness: The translation of attitudes into verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 95-113.
18. Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985).
19. Wiener, R. L., Prichard, C. C., & Weston, M. (1995). Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 455-467.
20. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).
21. Zeisel, H. (1968). Some data on juror attitudes toward capital punishment (Monograph). Center for Studies in Criminal Justice, University of Chicago Law School.