When mitigation evidence makes a difference: Effects of psychological mitigating evidence on sentencing decisions in capital trials

Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 751-770

  Barnett, Michelle E ^a,b   Brodsky, Stanley L ^b   Davis, Cali Manning ^b  

^a Department of Psychology ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CHILD ABUSE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DELUSION; DRUG DEPENDENCE; FEMALE; HALLUCINATION; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MENTAL DEFICIENCY; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; PRISONER; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PUNISHMENT; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCHIZOPHRENIA; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CAPITAL PUNISHMENT; CHILD; CHILD ABUSE; DECISION MAKING; DELUSIONS; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FEMALE; HALLUCINATIONS; HUMANS; INSANITY DEFENSE; JUDICIAL ROLE; MALE; MENTAL RETARDATION; MIDDLE AGED; SCHIZOPHRENIA; STUDENTS; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS;

EID: 11144246101     PISSN: 07353936     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bsl.591     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Acker, J. R., & Lanier, C. S. (1994a). "Parsing this lexicon of death": Aggravating factors in capital sentencing statues. Criminal Law Bulletin, 30, 107-153.
2. Acker, J. R., & Lanier, C. S. (1994b). In fairness and mercy: Statutory mitigating factors in capital punishment laws. Criminal Law Bulletin, 30, 299-345.
3. Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
4. Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5. American Bar Association. (1994). American Bar Association standards for criminal justice sentencing (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
6. Andrews, A. B. (1991). Social work expert testimony regarding mitigation in capital sentencing proceedings. Social Work, 36, 440-445.
7. Atkins v. Virginia, No. 00-8452 (U.S. argued February 20, 2002; decided June 20, 2002).
8. Blum, J. (1985, August). Investigation in a capital case: Telling the client's story. The Champion, 27-31.
9. Domozick, D. D. (1983). Fact or fiction: Mitigating the death penalty in Ohio. Cleveland State Law Review, 32, 263-293.
10. Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982).
11. Ellmann, S. (1986, April). Instructions on death: Guiding the jury's sentencing discretion in capital cases. The Champion, 20-32.
12. Ellsworth, P. C., Bukaty, R. M., Cowan, C. L., & Thompson, W. C. (1984). The death-qualified jury and the defense of insanity. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 81-93.
13. Garvey, S. P. (1998). Aggravation and mitigation in capital cases: What do jurors think? Columbia Law Review, 98, 1538-1576.
14. Geimer, W. S., & Amsterdam, J. (1988). Why jurors vote life or death: Operative factors in ten Florida death penalty cases. American Journal of Criminal Law, 15, 1-54.
15. Goodpaster, G. (1983). The trial for life: Effective assistance of counsel in death penalty cases. New York University Law Review, 58, 299-362.
16. Haney, C. (1995). The social context of capital murder: Social histories and the logic of mitigation. Santa Clara Law Review, 35, 547-609.
17. Lake, D. G., Miles, M. B., & Earle, R. B., Jr. (Eds.). (1973). Measuring human behavior. New York: Teachers College Press.
18. Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978).
19. Logan, D. D. (1989, Sept/Oct). Is it mitigation or aggravation? Troublesome areas of defense evidence in capital sentencing. California Attorneys of Criminal Justice Forum, 14-20.
20. 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.
21. McPherson, S. B. (1995). Psychosocial investigation in death penalty mitigation: Procedures, pitfalls, and impact. In G. Davies, S. Lloyd-Bostock, M. McMurran, & C. Wilson (Eds.), Psychology, law, and criminal justice: International developments in research and practice (pp. 286-295). Berlin: De Gruyter.
22. Melvin, K. B., Gramling, L. K., & Gardner, W. M. (1985). A scale to measure attitudes toward prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 241-253.
23. Perlin, M. L. (1994). The sanist lives of jurors in death penalty cases: The puzzling role of "mitigating" mental disability evidence. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy, 8, 239-279.
24. Robinson, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (1970). Measures of social psychological attitudes. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
25. Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (Eds.). (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic.
26. Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic.
27. Stettler, R. (1999). Mental disabilities and mitigation. The Champion, 23. Retrieved October 29, 2000 from http : //209.70.38.3/public.nsf/ ChampionArticles.
28. Tomes, J. P. (1997). Damned if you do, damned if you don't: The use of mitigation experts in death penalty litigation. American Journal of Criminal Law, 24, 359-399.
29. White, L. T. (1987). Juror decision making in the capital penalty trial. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 113-130.
30. Williams v. Taylor, No. 98-8384 (U.S. argued October 4, 1999; decided April 18, 2000).
31. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).
32. Zwillenberg, D. F. (1983). Predicting biases in the punishment of criminals as a function of authoritarianism: The effects of severity of the crime, degree of mitigating circumstances, and status of the offender. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 650.