Abstract
Two factors thought to influence jurors' penalty decisions in capital trials—the nature of the crime committed and the defense's portrayal of the convicted offender's character—were examined. Mock jurors were death-qualified and exposed to one of twelve simulated penalty trials. Each “trial” was comprised of one of three capital crimes and one of four defense strategies. Jurors were least punitive in “robbery-murder” conditions and most punitive in “multiple murder” conditions. A conceptual argument against capital punishment was the most effective defense; a “mental illness” defense was the least effective. Penalty decisions were mediated by three attributional variables: (a) juror perceptions of the defendant's volition, (b) juror perceptions of the defendant's future dangerousness, and (c) juror perceptions of the relative competency of the opposing attorneys.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950).The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.
Aronson, E. (1984).The social animal. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1968). Experimentation in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),Handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Balske, D. W. (1979). New strategies for the defense of capital cases.Akron Law Review, 13(2), 331–361.
California jury instructions: Criminal (CALJIC). (4th ed.). (1979). St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Co.
Carroll, J. L. (1981). Trial preparation for capital cases.Forum, 8(3), 31–34.
Dane, F. C., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1982). The effects of defendants' and victims' characteristics on jurors' verdicts. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.),The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 83–118). New York: Academic Press.
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(1/2), 45–54.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Ross, L. (1983). Public opinion and capital punishment: A close examination of the view of abolitionists and retentionists.Crime and Delinquency, 29(1), 116–169.
Fisher, R. A. (1936).Statistical methods for research workers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.
Haney, C. (1984). On the selection of capital juries: The biasing effects of the death-qualification process.Law and Human Behavior, 8(1/2), 121–132.
Loftus, E., & Monahan, J. (1980). Trial by data: Psychological research as legal evidence.American Psychologist, 35(3), 270–283.
Logan, D. D. (1983a). Why this man deserves to die: Themes identified in prosecution arguments in recent captial cases. Unpublished manuscript.
Logan, D. D. (1983b). Pleading for life: An analysis of themes in 21 penalty arguments by defense counsel in recent capital cases. Unpublished manuscript.
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109.
Stanford Law Review (Note). (1969) A study of the California penalty jury in first-degree-murder cases.Stanford Law Review, 21, 1296–1497.
Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This article is based on the author's dissertation which received an Honorable Mention in the 1985 SPSSI Dissertation Prize competition. The research was made possible by grants from the University of California, Santa Cruz and Division 41 of the American Psychological Association. The author is indebted to Craig Haney, Elliot Aronson, and Dane Archer for their valuable suggestions and support.
About this article
Cite this article
White, L.T. Juror decision making in the capital penalty trial. Law Hum Behav 11, 113–130 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01040445
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01040445