Death Penalty Decisions: Instruction Comprehension, Attitudes, and Decision Mediators

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 204-244

  Patry, Marc W ^a   Penrod, Steven D ^b  

^a SAINT MARY S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE   (United States)

Author keywords

capital punishment; comprehension; death penalty; decision making; jury instructions

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; COMPREHENSION; COURT; DEATH; DECISION MAKING; EMOTIONAL ABUSE; HUMAN; LIFE; PATH ANALYSIS; PUNISHMENT; VICTIM; VIDEORECORDING;

EID: 84879190765     PISSN: 15228932     EISSN: 15229092     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15228932.2013.795816     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Albonetti, C.A. 1991. An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problems, 38: 249 - 265.
2. Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173 - 1182.
3. Bornstein, B. H. and Nemeth, R. J. 1999. Jurors' perception of violence: A framework for inquiry. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4: 77 - 92.
4. Brank, E. M., Studebaker, C. S., Penrod, D. S., Claussen-Schulz, A. and Garven, A. July 1999. Influence of aggravating and mitigating factors in capital sentencing: A nationwide survey of U.S. Attorneys, July, Dublin, Ireland: Paper presented at the first Joint Conference of the American Psychology-Law Society and the European Association of Psychology and Law.
5. Buchanan v. Angelone, 118 S. Ct. 757 (1998).
6. Clary, E. G. and Shaffer, D. R. 1985. Another look at the impact of juror sentiments toward defendants on juridic decisions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 125: 637 - 651.
7. Cohen, J. 1977. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Dane, F. C. and Wrightsman, L. S. 1982. " Effects of defendants' and victims' characteristics on jurors' verdicts ". In The psychology of the courtroom, Edited by: Kerr, N. L. and Bray, R. M. 83 - 115. New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc.
9. Diamond, S. S. and Levi, J. N. 1996. Improving decisions on death by revising and testing jury instructions. Judicature, 79: 224 - 243.
10. Dillehay, R. C. and Sandys, M. R. 1996. Life under Wainwright v. Witt: Juror dispositions and death qualification. Law and Human Behavior, 20 1996
11. Douglas, K. S., Lyon, D. R. and Ogloff, J. P. 1997. The impact of graphic photographic evidence on mock jurors' decisions in a murder trial: probative or prejudicial?. Law and Human Behavior, 21: 485 - 502.
12. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
13. Geimer, W. S. and 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.
14. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
15. Haney, C. 1995. Taking capital jury seriously. Indiana Law Journal, 70: 1223 - 1246.
16. Haney, C. and Lynch, M. 1994. Comprehending life and death matters: A preliminary study of California's capital penalty instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 18: 411 - 436.
17. Haney, C. and Lynch, M. 1997. Clarifying life and death matters: An analysis of instructional comprehension and penalty phase closing arguments. Law and Human Behavior, 21: 575 - 595.
18. Haney, C., Sontang, L. and Costanzo, S. 1994. Deciding to take a life: Capital juries, sentencing instructions, and the jurisprudence of death. Journal of Social Issues, 50: 149 - 176.
19. Jendrek, M. P. and Kaplan, M. F. 1987. Social science and the discrepancy in the federal rules of evidence on character testimony. Law & Psychology Review, 11: 39 - 57.
20. Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978).
21. Luginbuhl, J. 1992. Comprehension of judges' instructions in the penalty phase of a capital trial. Law and Human Behavior, 16: 203 - 218.
22. Luginbuhl, J. and Howe, J. 1995. Discretion in capital sentencing instructions: Guided or misguided?. Indiana Law Journal, 70: 1161 - 1186.
23. Lynch, M. and Haney, C. 2009. Capital jury deliberation: Effects on death sentencing, comprehension, and discrimination. Law and Human Behavior, 33: 481 - 496.
24. Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988).
25. O'Neil, K., Patry, M. W. and Penrod, S. D. 2004. Beyond death-qualification: Exploring the effects of attitudes toward the death penalty on capital sentencing verdicts. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 10: 443 - 470.
26. Otto, C. W., Applegate, B. K. and Davis, R. K. 2007. Improving comprehension of capital sentencing instructions: Debunking juror misconceptions. Crime & Delinquency, 53: 502 - 517.
27. Rumsey, M. G. 1976. Effects of defendant background and remorse on sentencing judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 6: 64 - 68.
28. Smith, A. E. and Haney, C. 2011. Getting to the point: Attempting to Improve juror comprehension of capital penalty phase instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 35: 339 - 350.
29. Tiersma, P. M. 1995. Dictionaries and death: do capital jurors understand mitigation?. Utah Law Review,: 1 - 73.
30. Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U. S. 412 (1985).
31. Wiener, R. L., Hurt, L. E., Thomas, S. L., Sadler, M. S., Bauer, C. A. and Sargent, T. M. 1998. The role of declarative and procedural knowledge in capital murder sentencing. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28: 124 - 144.
32. Wiener, R. L., Pritchard, C. and Weston, M. 1995. Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80: 455 - 467.
33. Wiener, R. L., Rogers, M., Winter, R., Hurt, L., Hackney, A., Kadela, K.,. and Morasco, B. 2004. Guided jury discretion in capital murder cases: The role of declarative and procedural knowledge. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10: 516 - 576.