More is sometimes better: Increased mitigating evidence and sentencing leniency

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 79-85

  Tetterton, Veronica S ^a   Brodsky, Stanley L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA   (United States)

Author keywords

Mitigation evaluations; Mitigation evidence; Sentencing

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CHILD ABUSE; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMAN; LAW ENFORCEMENT; LEGAL EVIDENCE; MALE; MENTAL DISEASE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PUNISHMENT; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

EID: 35649024769     PISSN: 15228932     EISSN: 15229092     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J158v07n03_05     Document Type: Article

References (3)

1. Calder, B. A., Insko, C. A., & Yandell, B. (1974). The relation of cognitive and memorial processes to persuasion in a simulated jury trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 62-93.
2. Garvey, S. P. (1998). Aggravation and mitigation in capital cases: What do jurors think? Columbia Law Review, 98, 1538-1576.
3. 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, Germany: Walter De Gruyter.