Sentencing & Correction, Part 2
The Death Penalty Study Notes
Overview of the Death Penalty
Definition: Capital punishment, also referred to as the death penalty, is the sentence of death imposed on an individual based on the severity and nature of the offense committed.
Current Status:
The federal government and 28 states allow capital punishment under certain circumstances.
A significant majority of capital cases (64%) arise from just five states: Texas (accounting for 38% of capital cases), Virginia, Oklahoma, Florida, and Missouri (Fins, 2020).
Three states, California, Oregon, and Pennsylvania, have enacted moratoriums by their governors, temporarily halting the application of capital punishment (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).
Capital Offenses
Not all offenses lead to capital punishment.
Juveniles are entirely excluded from receiving the death penalty following the ruling in Roper v. Simmons (2005), which deemed it unconstitutional to execute juvenile defendants.
Types of Capital Offenses
State-Level Offenses:
Aggravated murder: encompassing several severe forms of murder which include:
Multiple murders
Murder of a child
Murder of a police officer
Murder committed during the commission of another crime
Murder for hire
Federal Offenses:
Includes crimes such as:
Espionage
Murder of a government official
Crimes involving weapons of mass destruction
Sending biohazardous or explosive materials via USPS.
Public Reception of the Death Penalty
Support for capital punishment fluctuates over time and varies by demographic factors.
Recent surveys show a preference for life in prison without parole over the death penalty, with a majority (60% vs 36%) favoring life imprisonment (Jones, 2019).
Support for the death penalty correlates with violent crime rates; higher violent crime rates tend to result in increased support for capital punishment.
Demographic Trends:
Individuals more likely to support capital punishment often include Republicans, middle-aged men, and White populations (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).
Legal and Constitutional Aspects
The death penalty has undergone extensive litigation, especially concerning Eighth and Fourth Amendment rights.
Furman v. Georgia (1972): The Supreme Court ruled that, in its form at that time, capital punishment was unconstitutional, identifying the discretionary nature of the application as “wantonly and freakishly applied” (p. 408).
This ruling did not abolish the death penalty but prompted states to revise their standards and protocols.
Two-Phase Jury Deliberation Process
Gregg v. Georgia (1976): Established a two-phase jury process in capital cases:
Guilt Phase: Determining the defendant's guilt regarding the capital offense.
Penalty Phase: Deciding if the death penalty is appropriate based on specific factors.
State supreme courts are required to review capital cases following this ruling (PSY 370-01).
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
During the penalty phase, jurors assess aggravating and mitigating factors:
Aggravating Factors: Factors that justify a death sentence by highlighting the severity or harmfulness of the actions. Example: High likelihood of future dangerousness can be considered an aggravating factor in Texas capital cases.
Mitigating Factors: Elements that may lessen the perceived culpability of the defendant, thus suggesting that life in prison could be a more suitable sentence.
According to Lockett v. Ohio (1978), jurors are required to consider all mitigating factors; they cannot completely dismiss them.
Burden of Proof and Jury's Role
Following Ring v. Arizona (2002), jurors must find at least one aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt before recommending the death penalty.
The jury’s verdict is paramount in capital cases, as Wurst v. Florida (2016) emphasized that execution decisions must stem from jury verdicts, not judicial fact-finding.
Death Qualification of Jurors
An additional step during voir dire in capital cases is known as death qualification, aimed at excluding individuals who are unlikely to impose the death penalty.
Characteristics of death-qualified jurors often include:
Predominantly male
Predominantly White
Strong beliefs that murderers deserve death (Summers et al., 2010).
Non-death qualified jurors:
Typically female, Black, and more liberal in their views regarding punishment.
Implications of Death Qualification
Criticism of death qualification suggests potential bias in jury selection, influencing conviction rates.
Death-qualified jurors have been shown to be more likely to convict in capital cases (Butler, 2008).
Lockhart v. McCree (1986): Acknowledged that death qualification produces more conviction-prone juries, but upheld the constitutionality of the process (p. 476).
Weighing Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
Death-qualified jurors tend to prioritize aggravating factors over mitigating ones, causing challenges in determining appropriate verdicts.
They rely primarily on general jury instructions that often lack clarity, leading to potential misinterpretations and subjective biases (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).
Risks of Unclear Jury Instructions
Ambiguous instructions can hinder the jurors' ability to evaluate aggravating and mitigating factors.
Emotional responses such as anger may impair objectivity and lead to dismissing mitigating factors (Nunez et al., 2018; Georges et al., 2013).
Lack of clear guidance can result in juror reliance on personal biases (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).
Addressing Racial Disparities
Research by Shaked-Schroer et al. (2008) examined the effect of simplified jury instructions on racial biases in verdicts.
Results indicated that less biased outcomes were achieved when instructions were more accessible.
Historical data reveals disparities in death sentences for Black versus White defendants, showing that 22% of Black convicts versus 3% of White convicts are sentenced to death (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).
Financial and Logistical Considerations
The death penalty entails extensive financial costs.
Example: In Maryland, prosecuting a capital case costs approximately $1.9 million more than a standard case due to extended investigations and appeals processes (Cunningham et al., 2018).
Current Statistics:
Approximately 2,100 individuals are currently on death row according to the Death Penalty Information Center (n.d.).
The average duration spent on death row is 20 years, with some inmates awaiting execution for as long as 36 years (Costanzo & Krauss, 2021).
Deterrence Theory
The intended purpose of the death penalty is to serve as a deterrent against serious crimes, particularly homicide.
Surprisingly, studies reveal that states with capital punishment can have higher homicide rates than those without (Donohue & Wolfers, 2006; Sellin, 1980).
Brutalization Effect
This phenomenon posits that executing individuals can desensitize society to violence and diminish inhibitions against violent behavior, leading to increased violence post-execution (Bowers, 1998; Donohue & Wolfers, 2006, 2007).
Conceptual challenges in deterrence theory suggest:
Not all individuals consider the consequences of their actions logically, especially in emotionally charged circumstances (Costanzo, 1997).
Factors such as intoxication and a lack of belief in facing capital punishment can undermine the deterrent effect of the death penalty.
Wrongful Convictions in Capital Cases
One of the gravest missteps in the legal system is the wrongful conviction and execution of an innocent person.
Radelet et al. (1992) documented 416 cases of wrongful death sentences stemming from various errors:
Law enforcement errors: including flawed investigations and coerced confessions.
Prosecutorial errors: related to withholding exculpatory evidence.
Witness errors: including misidentifications and perjury.
Errors in forensic science.
Misleading circumstantial evidence coupled with community pressure.
Exonerations and Advances in DNA Evidence
Between 1973 and 2019, 167 individuals were exonerated after wrongful death sentences as documented by the Death Penalty Information Center (2020).
Advances in DNA technology have enhanced the likelihood of exoneration, but the requirement for DNA evidence to be available complicates the potential for justice in certain cases (PSY 370-01).