Empirical Evidence and the Death Penalty: Past and Future (original) (raw)
Related papers
Broken Promise: The Supreme Court's Response to Social Science Research on Capital Punishment
Journal of Social Issues, 1994
we address the issues of when and how well the United States Supreme Court has taken cognizance of psychological data in its evolving jurisprudence of death. After a brief historical review of the use of psychological data in death penalty litigation, and a discussion of how and why it once promised to play a unique role in capital litigation, we assess the Court's record in using and evaluating this kind of data over the last two decades. Specifically, we look at the nature of the social facts that have been introduced in capital litigation during this period, discuss their potential constitutional importance, and systematically and critically evaluate the Court's treatment of them. There are important differences between the quest for truth in the courtroom and the quest for truth in the laboratory.-Justice Blackmun (Dauberr v.
Empirical Analysis and the Fate of Capital Punishment
Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, 2016
In his dissenting opinion in Glossip v. Gross, Justice Breyer attempted to give content to the Supreme Court’s prior command in Atkins v. Virginia that unless the imposition of the death penalty “measurably contributes to one or both of [the legitimate penological goals of deterrence and retribution], it ‘is nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering,’ and hence an unconstitutional punishment.” Justice Breyer’s opinion illuminates the central role that empirical studies have played in death penalty litigation since Furman v. Georgia on issues ranging from the lack of deterrence associated with the death penalty; to racial and ethnic bias in its administration; to the extensive delays, cost, errors, and arbitrary implementation; and to the failure to limit capital punishment to the worst of the worst offenders. Two months after Glossip, the battle over the empirical evaluation of capital punishment played out in the contentious 4-3 decision in Sta...
The Troy Davis Effect: Does Information on Wrongful Convictions Affect Death Penalty Opinions?
Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 2014
Furman v. Georgia, numerous studies have examined the factors affecting support for the death penalty. Although it is known that the death penalty continues to have strong support in the United States, it remains unclear how the rise in media coverage of wrongful convictions and the increasing number of Hispanics in the United States will affect opinions of and support for the death penalty. Using a sample of students at a predominantly Hispanic university, this study explores the effect of exposure to information on wrongful convictions on opinions about the death penalty.
2006
Legal Background When Gregg v. Georgia 2 and companion cases 3 endorsed this country's return to capital punishment in 1976, the United States Supreme Court accepted different approaches for guiding the exercise of sentencing discretion. 4 Common to these new Gregg-approved post-Furman 5 capital statutes was a two stage, or bifurcated trial at which the guilt and sentencing decisions were to be made separately and independently. 6 Since then, all death penalty jurisdictions 2. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976). 3. Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976); Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976). 4. These have been identified as "balancing" statutes that require the sentencer to weigh aggravating factors against mitigating factors, "threshold" statutes that require only that the sentencer find at least one statutory aggravating factor and consider mitigation, and "directed" statutes under which the sentencer must consider special sentencing issues. These distinctions among statutes are reviewed in Stephen Giles, Deciding Who Dies, 129 U.
As we approach the 50-year anniversary of the landmark Furman decision, the time is ripe for a renewed empirical test of the hypotheses Justice Marshall presented in his concurring opinion. Most relevant to this study, he suggested in his second proposition that "people who were fully informed as to the purposes of the penalty and its liabilities would find the penalty, shocking, unjust and unacceptable." While there has been much empirical testing of this hypothesis, the intent of this study is to add to the existing literature by examining whether specific types of information about capital punishment is associated with opposition to capital punishment. Data were collected by an instructor who taught death penalty classes (n = 122 subjects) to test this hypothesis. Results provide qualified support for Marshall's second hypothesis that knowledge is significantly related to an increase in death penalty opposition. Moreover, the following factors were significant predictors of overall change in participants' opinion: cost, deterrence, race of victim, and evolving societies. Surprisingly, the innocence items did not appear statistically significant in altering opinions. Future research should
Public Opinion and the Death Penalty: A Qualitative Approach
Strong public support for capital punishment is arguably the number one reason why the death penalty continues to be used as a form of correctional policy in the U.S. criminal justice system. Therefore, it is fundamental that the measure of death penalty opinion be heavily scrutinized. Utilizing a methodological approach not typically employed in this area, the current study conducted six focus groups to gain a better understanding of the complexity of these opinions. During the focus groups, participants were asked to state their general beliefs concerning the death penalty, respond to scenarios, and respond to research findings regarding the death penalty (i.e., costs, deterrence, wrongful convictions, race, etc.). The findings suggest that participants' views regarding the death penalty are more multifaceted than previously believed. This study further suggests that current methods used to measure public support of the death penalty fail to capture the complexity of sentiment on this issue. Over the past few decades American correctional policy has focused on a " get tough " approach toward crime and punishment. In order to cast themselves as " tough on crime, " both Democrats and Republicans have continuously supported measures to increase the punishment allocated to criminal offenders. The most punitive type of punishment in the United States is arguably the death penalty. Unlike other types of punishments (such as prison or jail), the death penalty is the only punishment with a mobilized opposition that continues to fight against its use. Political leaders, criminal justice administrators, judges, and citizen groups throughout the United States look at public opinion on capital punishment to support its continued use. In fact, strong public support is arguably the number one reason the death penalty continues to be used as a form of correctional policy in our criminal justice system. Bohm (2003) argues that public support for the death penalty contributes to its continued use in at least five ways. First, strong public support can sway legislators to vote in favor of the death penalty and against any statutes seeking its repeal. Second, he argues that prosecutors may seek the death penalty for political rather than legal purposes. Third, it may influence judges to impose death sentences or uphold death sentences on appeal. Fourth, governors may be less likely to veto death penalty legislation or commute a death sentence due to fear of risking re-election. Lastly, and what Bohm argues is the most important, is that supreme court justices (both state and federal) examine support for the death penalty as a measure of " evolving standards of decency " to decide whether the death penalty violates the U.S. Constitution's 8th Amendment " cruel and unusual punishment " clause.
Restoring Empirical Evidence to the Pursuit of Evenhanded Capital Sentencing
2020
In the denial of certiorari review in Hidalgo v. Arizona, 138 S. Ct. 1054 (2018), a four-Justice statement commented on the petition and the underlying litigation challenging, on the basis of empirical evidence, whether the Arizona capital sentencing statute sufficiently narrows the pool of defendants eligible to receive the death penalty. The Hidalgo Statement observes that the Arizona Supreme Court erred in its application of the Federal law and the petition raised an “important Eighth Amendment question” based on research into the operation of the sentencing statute. In declining the case, the four Justices encouraged similar future challenges and urged the development of trial court records examining any such statistical proof of alleged constitutional deficiencies. Since the landmark decision McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987), the Supreme Court has essentially sidelined empirically developed challenges to criminal statutes. Hidalgo offers noteworthy guidance to the potenti...