Abstract
We predicted that people who are excluded from serving on juries in capital cases due to their opposition to the death penalty (excludable subjects) tend to place a greater value on the preservation of due process guarantees than on efficient crime control, and therefore are more likely to accept an insanity defense in criminal cases than are people who are permitted to serve on capital juries (death-qualified subjects). Subjects who had previously been classified as death-qualified or excludable read four summaries of cases in which the defendant entered a plea of insanity, and made judgments of guilt or innocence. In the two cases involving nonorganic disorders (schizophrenia), death-qualified subjects were significantly more likely than excludable subjects to vote guilty; in the two cases involving organic disorders (mental retardation and psychomotor epilepsy), there were no differences between the two groups. In addition, excludable subjects gave significantly higher estimates than death-qualified subjects of the proportion of defendants pleading insanity who “really are” insane.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bronson, E. J. On the conviction-proneness and representativeness of the death-qualified jury: An empirical study of Colorado veniremen.University of Colorado Law Review, 1970,42, 1–32.
Cowan, C., Thompson, W., & Ellsworth, P. C. The effects of death qualificaiton on jurors' predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation.Law and Human Behavior, 1984,8, 53–80.
Davis, J. H., Bray, R. M., & Holt, R. W. The empirical study of social decision processes in juries. In J. Tapp and F. Levine (Eds.),Law, Justice and the Individual in Society: Psychological and Legal Issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1977.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Ross, L. Public opinion and capital punishment: A close examination of the views of abolitionists and retentionists.Crime and Delinquency, 1983, 116–169.
Fitzgerald, R., & Ellsworth, P. C. Due process vs. crime control: Death qualification and jury attitudes.Law and Human Behavior, 1984,8, 31–52.
Goldberg, F. Toward expansion ofWitherspoon: Capital scruples, jury bias, and use of psychological data to raise presumptions in the law.Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 1970,5, 53–69.
Louis Harris & Associates. Study No. 2016, 1971. (On file at NAACP Legal Defense Fund, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York 10019.)
Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N.Inside the jury. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press (in press).
Jurow, G. L. New data on the effect of a “death-qualified” jury on the guilt determination process.Harvard Law Review, 1971,84, 567–611.
Kalven, H., Jr., & Zeisel, H.The American Jury. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966.
Packer, H.The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1968.
Saks, M. J., & Hastie, R.Social Psychology in Court. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1978.
Simon, R. J.The Jury and the Defense of Insanity. Boston: Little, Brown, 1967.
Smith, T. W. A trend analysis of attitudes toward capital punishment, 1936–1974. In J. A. Davis (Ed.), Studies of social change since 1948, NORC Report 127B, Chicago: NORC, 1976.
Stone, A. A.Mental Health and the Law: A System in Transition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975.
Tringo, J. L. The hierarchy of preference toward disability groups.Journal of Special Education, 1970,4, 295–306.
Vidmar, N., & Ellsworth, P. C. Public opinion and the death penalty.Stanford Law Review, 1974,26, 1245–1270.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
About this article
Cite this article
Ellsworth, P.C., Bukaty, R.M., Cowan, C.L. et al. The death-qualified jury and the defense of insanity. Law Hum Behav 8, 81–93 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044352
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044352