Is more mitigation better? A comparison of the additive and averaging models in capital cases

American Journal of Forensic Psychology

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 57-70

  Butler, Brooke ^a   Moran, Gary ^a,b  

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

^b FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60549087531     PISSN: 07331290     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Lockett v.Ohio,438 U.S. 586 (1978)
2. Barnett ME, Brodsky SL, Price JR: Differential impact of mitigating evidence in capital case sentencing. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice 2007; 7:39-45
3. Butler B, Moran G: The role of death qualification in venirepersons' perceptions of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law and Human Behavior 2002; 26:175-184
4. Butler B: The role of death qualification in capital trials involving juvenile defendants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2007; 37:3:549-560
5. Haney C: Death by Design: Capital Punishment as a Social Psychological System. New York, Oxford University Press, 2005
6. Brekke NJ, Enko PJ, Clavet G, Seelau E: Of juries and court-appointed experts: the impact of nonadversarial versus adversarial expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior 1991; 15:451-475
7. Butler B: Information integration in attorney decision-making processes. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, New Orleans, March 2000
8. Moore PJ, Gump BB: Information integration in juror decision-making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1995; 25:2158-2179
9. Butler B, Moran G: The impact of death qualification, belief in a just world, legal authoritarianism, and locus of control on venire persons' evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 2007; 25:1:57-68
10. Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985)
11. Luginbuhl J, Middendorf K: Death penalty beliefs and jurors' responses to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law and Human Behavior 1988; 12:263-281
12. Robinson RJ: What does "unwilling" to impose the death penalty mean anyway? Another look at excludable jurors. Law and Human Behavior 1993; 17:471-477
13. Haney C, Hurtado A, Vega L: "Modern" death qualification: new data on its biasing effects. Law and Human Behavior 1994; 18:619-633
14. Butler B: Death qualification and prejudice: the effect of implicit racism, sexism, and homophobia on capital defendants' right to due process. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 2007; 25:6:857-867
15. Kravitz DA, Cutler BL, Brock P: Reliability and validity of the original and revised Legal Attitudes Questionnaire. Law and Human Behavior 1993; 17:661-677
16. Narby DJ, Cutler BL, Moran G: A meta-analysis of the association between authoritarianism and jurors' perceptions of defendant culpability. Journal of Applied Psychology 1993; 78:34-42
17. Martin TA, Cohn ES: Attitudes toward the criminal legal system: scale development and predictors. Psychology, Crime, and Law 2004; 10:367-391
18. Hingula R: Jurors' understanding of instructions in death penalty cases. Unpublished honors thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, 2001
19. Butler B: The role of death qualification in jurors' susceptibility to pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2007; 37:1:115-123
20. Butler B, Moran G: The role of death qualification and need for cognition in venirepersons' evaluations of expert scientific testimony in capital trials. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 2007; 25:4:561-571
21. Butler B, Wasserman AW: The role of death qualification in venirepersons' attitudes toward the insanity defense. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2006; 36:7:1744-1757
22. Luginbuhl J: Comprehension of judges' instructions in the penalty phase of a capital trial: focus on mitigating circumstances. Law and Human Behavior 1992; 16:203-218
23. Diamond SS: Instructing on death: psychologist, juries, and judges. American Psychologist 1993; 48:423-434
24. Lynch M, Haney C: Discrimination and instructional comprehension: guided discretion, racial bias, and the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior 2000; 24:337-358
25. Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986)
26. Uttecht v. Brown, 451 F. 3d 946 (2007)