Abstract
The present study investigated the Eighth Amendment tests of societal consensus and proportionality as applied to juvenile death penalties. A sample of former jurors (N=179) voted on whether to execute the defendant in a hypothetical case. Defendant's age (10, 15, 16, or 19) and level of remorse were varied. A large percentage of participants voted to execute the defendant in each condition, but the defendant's age and the participant's attitude toward juvenile culpability significantly predicted the likelihood of execution. Implications for the constitutionality of the juvenile death penalty and future research directions are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andrews, D. A., Robblee, M. A., Saunders, R., Huartson, K., Robinson, D., Kiessling, J. J., & West, D. (1987). Some psychometrics of judicial decision making: Toward a sentencing factors inventory.Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14, 62–80.
Coker v. Georgia, 433, U. S. 584 (1977).
Darlington, R. B. (1990).Regression and linear models. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. s. 782 (1982).
Erikson, E. H. (1950).Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Finkel, N. J. (1993). Socioscientific evidence and Supreme Court numerology: When Justices attempt to social science.Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 11, 67–66.
Finkel, N. J., Hughes, K. C., Smith, S. F., & Hurabiell, M. L. (1994). Killing kids: The juvenile death penalty and community sentiment.Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 12, 5–20.
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
Gerstenfeld, P. B., & Hashima, P. Y. (1992). Juveniles, capital punishment, and the Eighth Amendment: The implications of developmental psychology. Unpublished manuscript, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Gerstenfeld, P. B., & Tomkins, A. J. (1992, March).Age as a mitigating circumstance in juvenile homicide sentencing. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, San Diego, CA.
Grisso, T., & Conlin, M. (1984). Procedural issues in the juvenile justice system. In N. D. Reppucci, L. A. Weithorn, E. P. Mulvey, & J. Monohan (Eds.),Children, mental health, and the law (pp. 171–193). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Higgins, E. T. (1989). Knowledge accessibility and activation: Subjectivity and suffering from unconscious sources. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.),Unintended thought: The limits of awareness intention and control (pp. 75–123). New York: Guilford Press.
Kadane, J. B. (1984). AfterHovey: A note on taking account of the automatic death penalty jurors.Law and Human Behavior, 8, 115–120.
Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966).The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown.
Kohlberg, L. (1978). Revisions in the theory and practice of moral development. In W. Damon (Ed.)New Directions for Child Development, No. 2: Moral Development (pp. 83–87). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Konenci, V. J., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1982). An analysis of the sentencing system. In V. J. Konecni & E. B. Ebbesen (Eds.),The criminal justice system: A social-psychological analysis (pp. 293–332). San Francisco: Freeman.
Mulvey, E. P. (1984). Judging amendability to treatment in juvenile offenders. In N. D. Reppucci, L. A. Weithorn, E. P. Mulvey, & J. Monohan (Eds.),Children, mental health and the law (pp. 195–210). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Piaget, J. (1932).The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press.
Stafford, E., & Hill, J. (1987). The tariff, social inquiry reports and the sentencing of juveniles.British Journal of Criminology, 27, 411–420.
Stanford v. Kentucky, 109 S. Ct. 2969 (1989).
Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1987).
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958).
Wadlington, W., Whitebread, C. H., & Davis, S. M. (1983).Children in the legal system. Mineola, NY: Foundation Press.
Wainwright v. Witt, 105 S.Ct. 884 (1985).
Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was funded, in part, through a grant from the American Psychology-Law Society (American Psychological Association Division 41) to the second author. The authors would like to thank Judge Richard J. Jamborsky and Jeff Blanchard, without whose assistance this research would not have been possible, N. Dickon Reppucci, Ph.D. for his help in the preparation of this manuscript, and Mitch Zamoff, J.D., Lowell Sachs, J.D., Jocelyn Huyhn, and Jennifer Lacey for their contributions to this project.
About this article
Cite this article
Crosby, C.A., Britner, P.A., Jodl, K.M. et al. The juvenile death penalty and the Eighth Amendment. Law Hum Behav 19, 245–261 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01501659
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01501659