Aggravation and mitigation: Findings and implications

Journal of Psychiatry and Law

Volumn 37, Issue 2-3, 2009, Pages 189-236

  Sandys, Marla ^a   Pruss, Heather C ^a   Walsh, Sara M ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Aggravation; Mitigation; Psychopathy; Sentencing; Trauma

Indexed keywords

COURT; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DEATH; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HAZARD; HUMAN; INJURY; MENTAL HEALTH; PSYCHOPATHY; PUNISHMENT; REVIEW;

EID: 77950949543     PISSN: 00931853     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009318530903700204     Document Type: Review

References (105)

1. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).
2. Barnett, M., Brodsky, S., & Davis, C. (2004). When mitigation evidence makes a difference: Effects of psychological mitigating evidence on sentencing decisions in capital trials. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22, 751-770. (Pubitemid 40052059)
3. Barnett, M., Brodsky, S., & Price, J. (2007). Differential impact of mitigating evidence in capital case sentencing. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7, 39-46. (Pubitemid 46647862)
4. Barth, A. (2007). A Double-Edged Sword: The role of neuroimaging in federal capital sentencing. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 33, 500-522.
5. Bentele, U. & Bowers, W. (2001) How jurors decide on death: Guilt is overwhelming; Aggravation requires death; and mitigation is no excuse. Brooklyn Law Review, 66, 1012-1080.
6. Blume, J. H., Garvey, S. P., & Johnson, S. L. (2001). Future dangerousness in capital cases: Always "at issue." Cornell Law Review, 86, 387-399.
7. Blume, J. H., Johnson, S. L., & Sundby, S. E. (2008). Competent capital representation: The necessity of knowing and heeding what jurors tell us about mitigation. Hofstra Law Review, 36, 1035-1066.
8. Bornstein, B. H. (2004). The impact of different types of expert scientific testimony on mock jurors' liability verdicts. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(A), 429-446.
9. Bowers, W., Pierce, G., & McDevitt, J. (1984). Legal homicide: Death as punishment in America, 1864-1982. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
10. Bowers, W. & Foglia, W. (2003). Still singularly agonizing: Law's failure to purge arbitrariness from capital sentencing. Criminal Law Bulletin-Boston, 39, 51-86.
11. Bowers, W. J., Sandys, M., & B. D. Steiner (1998). Foreclosed impartiality in capital sentencing: Jurors' predispositions, guilt-trial experience, and premature decision making. Cornell Law Review, 83, 1476-1556.
12. Brekke, N., & Borgida, E. (1988). Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(3), 372-386.
13. Brewer, T. W. (2004). Race and jurors' receptivity to mitigation in capital cases: The effect of jurors', defendants', and victims' race in combination. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 529-545.
14. Butler, B. & Moran, G. (2002). The role of death qualification in venirepersons' evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital Trials. Law & Human Behavior, 26, 175-184. (Pubitemid 38420805)
15. Champagne, A., Shuman, D., & Whitaker, E. (1992). Expert witnesses in the courts: An empirical examination. Judicature, 76, 5.
16. Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A., & Sukel, H. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20(A), 379-394.
17. Cooper, J., & Neuhaus, I. M. (2000). The "hired gun" effect: Assessing the effect of pay, frequency of testifying, and credentials on the perception of expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 24(2), 149-171.
18. Costanzo, S. & Costanzo, M. (1994). Life or death decisions: An analysis of capital jury decision making under the special issues sentencing framework, Law & Human Behavior, 18, 151-168. (Pubitemid 24121974)
19. Cunningham, M. D. (2006). Dangerousness and death: A nexus in search of science and reason. American Psychologist, November 2006, 828-839.
20. Cunningham, M.D. (2007). Forensic psychology evaluations at capital sentencing. In. R. Jackson (Ed.), Learning Forensic Assessment (pp. 211-238). New York: Routledge.
21. Cunningham, M., & Reidy, T. (1998). Antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy: Diagnostic dilemmas in classifying patterns of antisocial behavior in sentencing evaluations. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 16, 331-351. (Pubitemid 28451317)
22. Cunningham, M. & Reidy, T. (1999). Don't confuse me with facts: Common errors in violence risk assessment at capital sentencing. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 26, 20-43.
23. Cunningham, M. E., & Reidy, T. (2002). Violence risk assessment at federal capital sentencing: Individualization, generalization, relevance, and scientific standards. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 512-537.
24. Cunningham, M. D., & Sorensen, J. R. (2007). Capital offenders in Texas prisons: Rates, correlates, and an actuarial analysis of violent misconduct. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 553-571.
25. Cunningham, M. D., Sorensen, J. R., & Reidy, T. (2005). An actuarial model for assessment of prison violence risk among maximum security inmates. Assessment, 12, 40-49. (Pubitemid 40900461)
26. Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(3), 622-727.
27. Dorland, M. & Krauss, D. (2005). Danger of dangerousness in capital sentencing: Exacerbating the problem of arbitrary and capricious decision-making. Law & Psychology Review, 29, 63-104. (Pubitemid 43285003)
28. Edens, J., Desforges, D., Fernandez, K., & Palac, C. (2004). Effects of psychopathy and violence risk testimony on mock juror perceptions of dangerousness in a capital murder trial. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 10, 393-412.
29. Edens, J., Buffington-Vollum, J., Keilin, A., Roskamp, P., & Anthony, C. (2005). Predictions of future dangerousness in capital murder trials: Is it time to "disinvent the wheel?" Law & Human Behavior, 26, 59-87.
30. Eisenberg, T., Garvey, S. P., & Wells, M. T. (1998). But was he sorry? The role of remorse in capital sentencing. Cornell Law Review, 83, 1599-1637. (Pubitemid 128443748)
31. Fox, S. G., & Walters, H. A. (1986). The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment. Law and Human Behavior, 10(3), 215-228.
32. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
33. Gabora, N. J., Spanos, N. P., & Joab, A. (1993). The effects of complainant age and expert psychological testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior, 17(1), 103-119.
34. Gardner, W., Lidz, C. W., Mulvey, E. P., & Shaw, E. C. (1996). Clinical versus actuarial predictions of violence of patients with mental illnesses. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 64(3), 602-609. (Pubitemid 26230555)
35. Garvey, S. P. (1998). Aggravation and mitigation in capital cases: What do jurors think? Columbia Law Review, 98, 1538-1576.
36. Geimer, W. & 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.
37. Greene, J., & Cohen, J. (2004). For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transranactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 559(1451), 1775-1785. (Pubitemid 39606385)
38. Greenberg, J., & Wursten, A. (1988). The psychologist and the psychiatrist as expert witnesses: Perceived credibility and influence. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19(4), 6.
39. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
40. Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), 293.
41. Guy, L. & Edens, J. (2003). Juror decision-making in a mock sexually violent predator trial: gender differences in the impact of divergent types of expert testimony. Behavioral Science & the Law, 21, 215-237. (Pubitemid 36407034)
42. Haney, C. (1984a). On the selection of capital juries: The biasing effects of death qualification. Law & Human Behavior, 8, 121-132.
43. Haney, C. (1984b). Examining death qualification: Further analysis of the process effect. Law & Human Behavior, 8, 133-151.
44. Haney, C., Hurtado, A., & Vega, L. (1994). "Modern" death qualification: New data on its biasing effects. Law & Human Behavior, 18, 619-633.
45. Haney, C. & Lynch, M. (1994). Comprehending life and death matters: A preliminary study of California's capital penalty instructions. Law & Human Behavior, 18, 411-436. (Pubitemid 24255267)
46. Haney, C. (1997). Violence and the capital jury: Mechanisms of moral disengagement and the impulse to condemn to death. Stanford Law Review, 49, 1447-1486. (Pubitemid 128047134)
47. Haney, C. (2005). Death by design: Capital punishment as a social psychological system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48. Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (2002). Prospective replication of the violence risk appraisal guide in predicting violent recidivism among forensic patients. Law and Human Behavior 26(4), 377.
49. Hemphill, J., Hare, R., & Wong, S. (1998). Psychopathy and recidivism: A review. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 3, 139-170.
50. Hess, A. K. (2006). Serving as an expert witness. In I. B. Weiner & A. K. Hess (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology (Third ed., pp 521-555). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
51. Higgins, P., Heath, W., & Grannemann, B. (2007). How type of excuse defense, mock juror age, and defendant age affect mock jurors' decisions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 371-392.
52. Huber, P. W. (1993). Galileo's revenge: Junk science in the courtroom. New York: Basic Books.
53. Indiana Code 35-50-2-9(c) Death penalty sentencing procedure
54. Ivkovic, S. K., & Hans, V. P. (2003). Jurors' evaluations of expert testimony: Judging the messenger and the message. Law & Social Inquiry, 28(2), 441-482. (Pubitemid 36872082)
55. Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
56. Kaye. D. H., & Koehler, J. J. (1991). Can jurors understand probabilistic evidence? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 154, 75-81.
57. Kerr, N.L., & Bray, R.M. (2007). Simulation, realism, and the study of the jury. In N. Brewer & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and Law: An empirical perspective (pp. 322-364). New York: Guilford Press.
58. Klein, J.G. (1991). Negativity effects in impression formation: A test in the political arena. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 412-418.
59. Koehler, J. J. (2001a). The psychology of numbers in the courtroom: How to make DNA-match statistics seem impressive or insufficient. Southern California Law Review, 74, 1275-1305.
60. Koehler, J. J. (2001b). When are people persuaded by DNA match statistics? Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), 493-513.
61. Kovera, M. B., Gresham, A. W., Borgida, E., Gray, E., & Regan, P. C. (1997). Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 78-171 (Pubitemid 127370028)
62. Kovera, M. B., Levy, R. J., Borgida, E., & Penrod, S. D. (1994). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases. Law and Human Behavior, 18(6), 653-674.
63. Krauss, D. A., & Lee, D. H. (2003). Deliberating on dangerousness and death: Jurors' ability to differentiate between expert actuarial and clinical predictions of dangerousness. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 26, 113-137.
64. Krauss, D. & Lieberman, J. (2007). Expert testimony on risk and future dangerousness. In M. Costanzo, D. Krauss, & K. Pezdek (Eds.), Expert Psychological Testimony for the Courts (pp. 227-249). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
65. Krauss, D. A. & Sales, B. D. (2001). The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 267-310.
66. Levine, J. P. (1996). The case study as a jury research methodology. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 351-360. (Pubitemid 126171739)
67. Locken v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978).
68. Luginbuhl, J. & Middendorf, K. (1988). Death penalty beliefs and jurors' responses to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law & Human Behavior, 12, 263-281.
69. Maass, A., Brigham, J. C., & West, S. G. (1985). Testifying on eyewitness reliability: Expert advice is not always persuasive. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15(3), 207-229.
70. McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (2008). Juror need for cognition and sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidence Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(2), 385-408.
71. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (2nd ed.): The Guilford Press.
72. Memon, A., & Shuman, D. W. (1998). Juror perception of experts in civil disputes: The role of race and gender. Law & Psychology Review, 22, 179.
73. Monahan, J. (1981). The clinical prediction of violent behavior. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
74. Montgomery, J. H., Ciccone, J. R., Garvey, S. P., & Eisenberg, T. (2005). Expert testimony in capital sentencing: Juror responses. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33, 509-518.
75. Mossman, D. (1994). Assessing predictions of violence: Being accurate about accuracy. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 62(4), 783-792. (Pubitemid 24268721)
76. Otto, C., Applegate, B., & Davis, R. (2007). Improving comprehension of capital sentencing instructions: Debunking juror misconceptions. Crime & Delinquency, 53, 502-517.
77. Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995). Violent recidivism: Assessing predictive validity. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 63(5), 737-748.
78. Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002)
79. Robinson, R. (1993). What does "unwilling to impose the death penalty" mean anyways? Another look at excludable jurors. Law & Human Behavior, 17, 471-477.
80. Rogers, R., Bagby, R. M., & Chow, M. M. (1992). Psychiatrists and the parameters of expert testimony. Int J Law Psychiatry, 15(4), 387-396.
81. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 541 (2005).
82. Sanders, J. (1993). Jury deliberation in a complex case: Havner v. Merrell Dow pharmaceuticals. Justice System Journal, 16, 45.
83. Sandys, M., Trahan, A., & Pruss, H. (2008). Taking account of the "diminished capacities" of the mentally retarded: Are capital jurors up to the task? DePaul Law Review, 57, 679-700.
84. Schuller, R. A. (1992). The impact of battered woman syndrome evidence on jury decision processes. Law and Human Behavior, 16(6), 597-620.
85. Schuller, R. A., & Cripps, J. (1998). Expert evidence pertaining to battered women: The impact of gender of expert and timing of testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 22(1), 17-31.
86. Schuller, R. A., Terry, D., & McKimmie, B. (2001). Impact of an expert's gender on jurors' decisions. Law & Psychology Review, 25, 59. (Pubitemid 33339189)
87. Schuller, R. A., Terry, D., & McKimmie, B. (2005). The impact of expert testimony on jurors' decisions: Gender of the expert and testimony complexity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(6), 1266-1280. (Pubitemid 41687213)
88. Selvin, M., & Picus, L. (1987). The debate over jury performance-Observations from a recent asbestos case. Institute for Civil Justice, Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
89. Shah, S. (1978). Dangerousness: A paradigm for exploring some issues in law and psychology. American Psychologist, 33, 24-238.
90. Shuman, D. W., Whitaker, E., & Champagne, A. (1994). Empirical examination of the use of expert witnesses in the courts - part ii: A three city study. Jurimetrics Journal, 34, 193.
91. Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994).
92. Singer, M. T., & Nievod, A. (1987). Consulting and testifying in court. In I. B. Weiner & A. K. Hess (Eds.), Handbook of Forensic Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
93. Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105(1), 131-142.
94. Smith, B. C., Penrod, S. D., Otto, A. L., & Park, R. C. (1996). Jurors' use of probabilistic evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20(1), 49-82.
95. Snead, O. Carter (2007). Neuroimaging and the "complexity" of capital punishment. New York University Law Review, 82, 1265-1339.
96. Sundby, S. E. (1997). The jury as critic: An empirical look at how capital juries perceive expert and lay testimony. Virginia Law Review, 83(6), 1109-1188. (Pubitemid 127147805)
97. Sundby, S. (1998). The capital jury and absolution: The intersection of trial strategy, remorse, and the death penalty. Cornell Law Review, 83, 1557-1598.
98. Swenson, R. A., Nash, D. L., & Roos, D. C. (1984). Source credibility and perceived expertness of testimony in a simulated child-custody case. Professional psychology, research and practice, 15(6), 891-898.
99. Thompson, W. C., & Schumann, E. L. (1987). Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials. Law and Human Behavior, 11(3), 167-187.
100. Vidmar, N., & Diamond, S. S. (2000). Juries and expert evidence. Brooklyn Law Rev., 66, 1121.
101. Vidmar, N., & Schuller, R. A. (1989). Juries and expert evidence: Social framework testimony. Law & Contemporary Problems, 52, 133.
102. Vonk, R. (1993). The negativity effect in trait ratings and in open-ended descriptions of persons. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 269-278.
103. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003).
104. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000).
105. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).