The role of death qualification in venirepersons' susceptibility to victim impact statements

Psychology, Crime and Law

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 133-141

  Butler, Brooke ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA SARASOTA MANATEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Capital punishment; Death penalty; Death qualification; Jurors; Victim impact statements

Indexed keywords

EID: 42649119483     PISSN: 1068316X     EISSN: 14772744     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10683160701483534     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987).
2. Butler, B. (2007a). The role of death qualification in capital trials involving juvenile defendants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 549-560.
3. Butler, B. (2007b). The role of death qualification in jurors' susceptibility to pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 115-123.
4. 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, 175-184.
5. Butler, B., & Moran, G. (2007). The impart of death qualification, belief in a just world, legal authoritarianism, and locus of control on venirepersons' evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 57-68.
6. Butler, B., & Moran, G. (2007b). The role of death qualification and need for cognition in venirepersons' evaluations of expert scientific testimony in capital trials. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25(4), 561-571.
7. Butler, B., & Wasserman, A. W. (2006). The role of death qualification in venirepersons' attitudes toward the insanity defense. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1144-1151.
8. 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.
9. Cutler, B. L., Moran, G., & Narby, D. J. (1992). Jury selection in insanity defense cases. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 165-182.
10. Dillehay, R. C., & Sandys, M. R. (1996). Life under Wainwright v. Witt: Juror dispositions and death qualification. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 147-165.
11. Ellsworth, P. C., Bukaty, R. M., Cowan, C. L., & Thompson, W. C. (1984). The death-qualified jury and the insanity defense. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 81-93.
12. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
13. Fitzgerald, R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). Due process vs. crime control: Death qualification and jury attitudes. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 31-51.
14. Greene, E. (1999). The many guises of victim impact evidence and effects on jurors' judgments. Psychology, Crime, & Laws, 5, 331-348.
15. Haney, C. (1984a). On the selection of capital juries: The biasing effects of the death qualification process. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 121-132.
16. Haney, C. (1984b). Examining death qualification: Further analysis of the process effect. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 133-151.
17. Haney, C., Hurtado, A., & Vega, L. (1994). 'Modern' death qualification: New data on its biasing effects. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 619-633.
18. Hans, V. P. (1986). Death by jury. In K. C. Haas & J. A. Incardi (Eds.), Challenging capital punishment: Vol. 24. Legal and social science approaches (pp. 149-175). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
19. 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.
20. Myers, B., Godwin, D., Latter, R., & Winstanley, S. (2004). Victim impact statements and mock juror sentencing: The impact of dehumanizing language on a death-qualified sample. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 22, 39-55.
21. Myers, B., & Greene, E. (2004). The prejudicial nature of victim impact statements: Implications for capital sentencing policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and and Law, 10, 492-515.
22. Payne v. Tennessee, 111 S. Ct. 2597 (1991).
23. Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).
24. Robinson, R. J. (1993). What does 'unwilling' to impose the death penalty mean anyway? Another look at excludable jurors. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 471-477.
25. 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.
26. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
27. Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985).