Skip to main content

Examining the Impact of Proximate Culpability Mitigation in Capital Punishment Sentencing Recommendations: The Influence of Mental Health Mitigators

Abstract

In spite of the ruling in Atkins v. Virginia (2002), concerns remain that individuals with mental illness and reduced capacity are eligible for the death penalty. When mental illness or reduced capacity is not enough to preclude death-eligibility, these factors are often discussed at the sentencing phase as mitigators. Mitigation remains an under-researched avenue in the sentencing literature, particularly when it comes to the influence of specific types of mitigation. The present study contributes to knowledge on mental health mitigation by examining five mitigators relevant to the mental health and capacity of defendants. Using data from 834 capital sentences in North Carolina, the influence of these proximate culpability mitigators on jury sentence recommendations is examined. Results indicate that acceptance of certain mental health mitigators reduces the probability of death, but acceptance of others is not significantly related to death recommendations. These findings and their implications are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The primary exception being analyses associated with the Capital Jury Project.

  2. 2.

    The majority of states use and have used juries to make the sentencing recommendation. Some states allow for a jury or three judge panel to make this determination; however, Ring v. Arizona (2002) limited this practice, requiring that juries decide the presence of an aggravating factor (s), not a judge. A handful of states still rely on judges to determine the final sentence, though under fairly narrow circumstances (for details, see Bjerregaard, Smith, & Fogel, 2009).

  3. 3.

    There are seven common statutory mitigating factors: 1) the defendant has no significant criminal history, 2) the defendant was suffering from mental or emotional disturbance, 3) the victim was somehow a participant in the situation leading to the murder or gave consent, 4) the defendant was acting under duress, 5) imperfect insanity and/or intoxication, i.e. not enough to qualify as an excuse or successful defense, 6) the age of the defendant at the time of the crime, and 7) the defendant was a more minor participant in the crime. An additional statutory mitigator, defendant belief in moral justification or extenuation, has not been as widely adopted (Acker & Lanier, 1994). The above statutory mitigating factors are not an inclusive list, nor do all of these appear in every state, but they do provide the basis for statutory mitigation in the United States.

  4. 4.

    While not a mock juror study per se Barnett et al. (2004) and White (1987) derived their pool of mock jurors from a sample of college students. So, while the lack of death-eligibility may influence the findings, the demographics of the sample are similar to those of the two previous mock jury studies and thus is included in this discussion.

  5. 5.

    This critique is not meant to suggest that examining the influence of mitigators singularly was a methodological error. Obviously, this is a useful method for determining jurors and potential jurors responses to specific mitigating circumstances. However, in real capital trials jurors are likely to be presented with multiple mitigating (and aggravating) circumstances and thus it is important to consider the influence of mitigators in concert with additional factors.

  6. 6.

    For an investigation of the potential influence of mitigation pre- and post-McKoy see Kremling et al. (2007).

  7. 7.

    Fifty-one cases were removed from analysis because the jury did not find an aggravating factor, and therefore mitigators were not considered. Forty-eight cases were eliminated because the Issues and Recommendations as to Punishment forms (which identify acceptance and rejection of submitted aggravators and mitigators) could not be located in county files, or were not completed by the jury for various reasons. The remaining two cases were missing information on one of the mitigators of interest. The source of this missing information was that the mitigator was submitted but the jury did not indicate whether they accepted it on the Issues and Recommendations as to Punishment form. All 101 of these “missing” cases resulted in life sentences, resulting in a proportional overrepresentation of death sentences in the working sample.

  8. 8.

    In some states the age mitigator is considered chronological. In North Carolina, however, legal opinions have noted that age may be submitted in order to signify mental or emotional age, not just chronological age; e.g., "We have held that chronological age is not the determinative factor with regard to this [age] mitigating circumstance. State v. Oliver, 309 N.C. 326, 307 S.E.2d 304 (1983). The defendant's immaturity, youthfulness, or lack of emotional or intellectual development at the time of the crime must also be considered" (State v. Bowie, 1995).

  9. 9.

    Multicollinearity did not appear to be a concern in these analyses. Variance Inflation Factors (VIFs) were all under 2.5 in both models, the highest being 2.223.

References

  1. Acker, J. R., & Lanier, C. S. (1994). In fairness and mercy: Statutory mitigating factors in capital punishment laws. Criminal Law Bulletin, 30, 299–345.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Atkins v. Virginia. (2002). 536 U.S. 304

  3. Barnett, M. E., Brodsky, S. L., & Davis, C. M. (2004). When mitigation evidence makes a difference: Effects of psychological mitigation evidence on sentencing decisions in capital trials. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22, 751–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barnett, M. E., Brodsky, S. L., & Price, R. (2007). Differential impact of mitigating evidence in capital case sentencing. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7, 39–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berkman, E. F. (1989). Mental illness as an aggravating circumstance in capital sentencing. Columbia Law Review, 89, 291–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bjerregaard, B., Smith, M. D., & Fogel, S. J. (2005). Benefits and risks of using “diminished capacity” mitigation in death penalty proceedings. In S. W. Hartwell (Ed.), Research in social problems and public policy, vol. 12: The organizational response to persons with mental illness involved with the justice system (pp. 111–134). New York: Emerald Publishing

  7. Bjerregaard, B., Smith, M. D., & Fogel, S. J. (2009). Legal arguments for life or death: The use of aggravating and mitigating circumstances during the sentencing phase of capital murder trials. In R. Muraskin (Ed.), Key correctional issues (2nd ed., pp. 285–310). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bjerregaard, B., Smith, M. D., Fogel, S. J., & Palacios, W. (2010). Alcohol and drug mitigation in capital murder trials: Implications for sentencing decisions. Justice Quarterly, 27, 517–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ellsworth, P. C., Bukaty, R. M., Cowan, C. L., & Thompson, W. C. (1984). The death qualified jury and the defense of insanity. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 81–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Furman v. Georgia. (1972). 408 U.S. 393

  11. Gregg v. Georgia. (1976). 428 U.S. 153

  12. Garvey, S. P. (1998). Aggravation or mitigation in capital cases: What do jurors think? Columbia Law Review, 98, 1538–1576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Haney, C., Sontag, L., & Costanzo, S. (1994). Deciding to take a life: Capital juries, sentencing instructions, and the jurisprudence of death. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 149–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kavanaugh-Earl, J., Cochran, J. K., Smith, M. D., Fogel, S. J., & Bjerregaard, B. (2008). Racial bias and the death penalty. In M. J. Lynch, E. B. Patterson, & K. K. Childs (Eds.), Racial divide: Racial and ethnic biases in the criminal justice system (pp. 147–196). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press..

  15. Kremling, J., Smith, M. D., Cochran, J. K., Bjerregaard, B., & Fogel, S. J. (2007). The role of mitigating factors in capital sentencing before and after McKoy v. North Carolina. Justice Quarterly, 24, 357–381.

  16. Lockett v. Ohio. (1978). 438 U.S. 586

  17. Link, B. G., Phelan, J. C., Bresnahan, M., Stueve, A., & Pescosolido, B. A. (1999). Public conceptions of mental illness: Labels, causes, dangerousness, and social distance. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1328–1333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lynch, M. (2009). The social psychology of capital cases. In J. D. Lieberman & D. A. Krauss (Eds.), Jury psychology: Social aspects of trial processes (pp. 157–182). London: Ashgate.

  19. McKoy v. North Carolina. (1990). 494 U.S. 433

  20. McPherson, S. B. (1995). Psychological investigation in death penalty mitigation: Procedures, pitfalls, and impact. In G. Davies, S. Lloyd-Bostock, M. McMurran, & C. Wilson (Eds.), Psychology, law, and criminal justice: International developments in research and practice (pp. 286–295). New York: Walter de Gruyter

  21. Mental illness and the death penalty in North Carolina: A diagnostic approach. (2007). Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/capital/nc_mental_illness_report2007.pdf.

  22. North Carolina General Statutes. (n.d.) Chapter 15A–2000. Subchapter XV: Capital punishment. Retrieved from http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=15A–2000

  23. Petersen, T. (1985). A comment on presenting results from logit and probit models. American Sociological Review, 50, 130–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Phelan, J. C., & Link, B. G. (1998). The growing belief that people with mental illness violent: The role of dangerousness criterion for civil commitment. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 33, S7–S12.

  25. Reardon, M. C., O’Neil, K. M., & Levett, L. M. (2007). Deciding mental retardation and mental illness in capital cases: The effects of procedure, evidence, and attitudes. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, 537–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ring v. Arizona. (2002). 122 S. Ct. 2428

  27. Sandys, M., Trahan, A., & Pruss, H. (2008). Taking account of the “diminished capacities of the retarded”: Are capital jurors up to the task? DePaul Law Review, 57, 679–700.

  28. Slobogin, C. (2005). Symposium: the death penalty and mental illness: Mental disorder as an exemption from the death penalty: The ABA-IRR Task Force recommendations. Catholic University Law Review, 54, 1133–1152.

    Google Scholar 

  29. State v. Bowie. (1995). 456 S.E. 2d 771

  30. White, L. T. (1987). Juror decision making in the capital penalty trial: An analysis of crimes and defense strategies. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 113–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Woodson v. North Carolina (1976). 428 U.S. 280

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lane Kirkland Gillespie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gillespie, L.K., Smith, M.D., Bjerregaard, B. et al. Examining the Impact of Proximate Culpability Mitigation in Capital Punishment Sentencing Recommendations: The Influence of Mental Health Mitigators. Am J Crim Just 39, 698–715 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9255-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Capital sentencing
  • Mitigation
  • Death penalty
  • Mental health