death penalty research paper introduction

The Social Science of the Death Penalty: Before, during, and after Trial

• First Online: 24 November 2020

Cite this chapter

• Matthew P. West 5 &
• Monica K. Miller 6  

Part of the book series: Advances in Psychology and Law ((APL,volume 5))

1186 Accesses

2 Citations

The death penalty is a controversial topic that has attracted attention broadly, from diverse groups including lawmakers, religious leaders, and the general public. Social scientists have also been intrigued by the phenomenon and have studied many aspects related to the penalty. Several of these bodies of research are the focus of this chapter. First, the chapter begins with a discussion of the social science-based explanations for the changes in practice and sentiment that the death penalty has experienced. Over time, the death penalty has become less frequently used, and by fewer and fewer jurisdictions. While many people object to the penalty, others defend its use. Scholars have explained these trends. Second, social science has suggested a number of human tendencies that are adaptive in general life, but inadvertently affect sentiment toward criminals and the death penalty. For instance, people have stereotypes, heuristics, and attributions that facilitate quick decision-making, but could also lead to biased decisions. Third, social scientists have studied the trial itself. The very process of selecting a jury can affect the trial outcome, as can jurors’ consideration of both legal and extralegal factors. Both the prosecutor and defense attorney can also affect the trial outcome in many ways. Fourth, the chapter discusses the roles and research related to offenders’ experiences on death row. Psychologists assess offenders’ competency to be executed, study their well-being, and provide them with mental health services. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the possible future of death penalty law and accompanying research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Ackerson, K. S., Brodsky, S. L., & Zapf, P. A. (2005). Judges’ and psychologists’ assessments of legal and clinical factors in competence for execution. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11 (1), 164–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.1.164

Article   Google Scholar  

Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness . New York: The New Press.

Google Scholar  

Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (2004). A revised religious fundamentalism scale: The short and sweet of it. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14 , 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr1401_4

Alvarez, M., & Miller, M. K. (2017). How defendants’ legal status and ethnicity and participants’ political orientation relate to death penalty sentencing decisions. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3 , 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000128

Alvarez, M., Miller, M. K., & Bornstein, B. H. (2016). “It will be your duty…:” The psychology of criminal jury instructions. In M. K. Miller & B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (Vol. 1, pp. 119–158). New York, NY: Springer.

American Civil Liberties Union (2013). A death before dying: Solitary confinement on death row . Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/report/death-dying-solitary-confinement-death-row

Amidon, E. (2013). Lightning strikes twice: An examination of the political factors associated with state-level death sentences and executions in the United States, 1930–2012 (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest.

Amnesty International. (2019). Death sentences and executions 2018 . London: Amnesty International Ltd..

Anderson, B., & Coletto, D. (2016). Canadians’ moral compass set differently from that of our neighbors to the South . Abacus Data. Retrieved from https://abacusdata.ca/canadians-moral-compass-set-differently-from-that-of-our-neighbours-to-the-south/

Andreasen, R. O. (2000). Race: Biological reality or social construct? Philosophy of Science, 67 (3), 653–666.

Anno, B. J., Graham, C., Lawrence, J. E., & Shansky, R. (2004). Correctional health care: Addressing the needs of elderly, chronically ill, and terminally ill inmates (Report No. 018735). Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

Antonio, M. (2006). Arbitrariness and the death penalty: How the defendant’s appearance during trial influences capital jurors’ punishment decision. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24 (2), 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.673

Appelbaum, P. S., Scurich, N., & Raad, R. (2015). Effects of behavioral genetic evidence on perceptions of criminal responsibility and appropriate punishment. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21 (2), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000039

Baldus, D. C., Grosso, C. M., Woodworth, G., & Newell, R. (2012). Racial discrimination in the administration of the death penalty: The experience of the United States Armed Forces (1984–2005). The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 101 , 1227–1335.

Baldus, D. C., Woodworth, G., Grosso, C. M., & Christ, A. M. (2003). Arbitrariness and discrimination in the administration of the death penalty: A legal and empirical analysis of the Nebraska experience, 1973–1999. Nebraska Law Review, 81 (2), 486–684.

Baldus, D. C., Woodworth, G., & Pulaski, C. (1990). Equal justice and the death penalty: A legal and empirical analysis . Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Bandes, S. A. (2003). Fear factor: The role of media in covering and shaping the death penalty. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 1 , 585–597.

Bandes, S. A. (2009). Victims, “closure,” and the sociology of emotion. Law and Contemporary Problems, 72 , 1–29.

Bandura, A. (2016). Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves? New York: Worth.

Banner, S. (2002). The death penalty: An American history . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Barak, G. (2011). Media, society and criminology. In G. Barak (Ed.), Media, process, and the social construction of crime: Studies in newsmaking criminology . New York: Routledge.

Barbour, P. L. (1962). Captain George Kendall: Mutineer or intelligencer? The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 70 (3), 297–313.

Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54 (7), 462–479. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.462

Barnes, K., Sloss, D., & Thaman, S. (2009). Place matters (most): An empirical study of prosecutorial decision-making in death-eligible cases. Arizona Law Review, 51 , 305–379.

Barnett, M. E., Brodsky, S. L., & Manning-Davis, C. (2004). When mitigation evidence makes a difference: Effects of psychological mitigating evidence on sentencing decisions in capital trials. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 22 (6), 751–770. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.591

Bauman, C. W., & Skitka, L. J. (2010). Making attributions for behaviors: The prevalence of correspondence bias in the general population. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32 (3), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2010.495654

Baumer, E. P., Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2003). Explaining spatial variation in support for capital punishment: A multilevel analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 108 (4), 844–875. https://doi.org/10.1086/367921

Bazelone, E. (2020, January 15). Shadow of a doubt. New York Times Magazine . Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/15/magazine/split-jurors.html

Beale, S. S. (2006). The news media’s influence on criminal justice policy: How market-driven news promotes punitiveness. William and Mary Law Review, 48 , 397–481.

Beardsley, M., Kamin, S., Marceau, J. F., & Phillips, S. (2015). Disquieting discretion: Race, geography & the Colorado death penalty in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Denver University Law Review, 92 , 431–452.

Beccaria, C. (1764). An essay on crimes and punishments. The Perfect Library.

Bibas, S. (2004). Plea bargaining outside the shadow of trial. Harvard Law Review, 117 (8), 2463–2547.

Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (2), 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013935

Boots, D. P., & Cochran, J. K. (2011). The gender gap in support for capital punishment: A test of attribution theory. Women & Criminal Justice, 21 (3), 171–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2011.584461

Boppre, B. L., & Miller, M. K. (2014). How victim and execution impact statements affect mock jurors’ perceptions, emotions, and verdicts. Victims and Offenders, 9 , 413–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2013.845124

Bornstein, B. H., & Greene, E. (2017). The jury under fire: Myth, controversy, and reform . New York: Oxford University Press.

Brandt, M. J., & Reyna, C. (2010). The role of prejudice and the need for closure in religious fundamentalism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36 (5), 715–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210366306

Bright, D., & Goodman-Delahunty, A. (2006). Gruesome evidence and emotion: Anger, blame, and jury decision-making. Law and Human Behavior, 30 (2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9027-y

Brodsky, S. L. (1990). Professional ethics and professional morality in the assessment of competence for execution: A response to Bonnie. Law and Human Behavior, 14 (1), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01055791

Brodsky, S. L., Zapf, P. A., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2001). The last competency: An examination of legal, ethical, and professional ambiguities regarding evaluations of competence for execution. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1 , 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1300/J158v01n02_01

Brown, R. P., & Osterman, L. L. (2012). Culture of honor, violence, and homicide. In T. K. Shackleford & V. A. Weekes-Schackleford (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evolutionary perspectives on violence, homicide, and war . https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738403.013.0013

Buffington-Vollum, J., Edens, K., & Keilen, J. (2008). Predicting institutional violence among death row inmates: The utility of the Sorensen and Pilgrim Model. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 23 , 16–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-008-9016-9

Burr, R. (2003). Litigating with victim impact testimony: The serendipity that has come from Payne v. Tennessee . Cornell Law Review, 88 , 517–529.

Bushway, S. D., Redlich, A. D., & Norris, R. J. (2014). An explicit test of please bargaining in the “shadow of the trial”. Criminology, 52 (4), 723–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12054

Butler, B. M. (2012). Capital pretrial publicity as a symbolic public execution: A case report. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 12 (3), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2011.588522

Butler, B. M., & Moran, G. (2002). The role of death qualification in venirepersons’ evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law and Human Behavior, 26 (2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014640025871

Butler, B. M., & Moran, G. (2007). The impact of death qualification, belief in a just world, legal authoritarianism, and locus of control on venirepersons’ evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 25 (1), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.734

Campbell, A., & Cross, C. (2012). Women and aggression. In T. K. Shackleford & V. A. Weekes-Schackleford (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evolutionary perspectives on violence, homicide, and war . https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738403.013.0012 .

Chavez, H. L., & Miller, M. K. (2009). Religious references in death sentence phases of trials: Two psychological theories that suggest judicial rulings and assumptions may affect jurors. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 13 , 1037–1083.

Connors, M. H., & Halligan, P. W. (2015). A cognitive account of belief: A tentative road map. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01588

Costanzo, M., & Peterson, J. (1994). Attorney persuasion in the capital penalty phase? A content analysis of closing arguments. Journal of Social Issues, 50 , 125–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02413.x

Crandall, C., & Warner, R. (2005). How prejudice is recognized. Psychological Inquiry, 16 (2/3), 137–141.

Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129 (3), 414–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.414

Crandall, C. S., Eshleman, A., & O’Brien, L. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 (3), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.359

Crandall, C. S., Ferguson, M. A., & Bahns, A. J. (2013). When we see prejudice: The normative window and social change. In C. Stangor & C. S. Crandall (Eds.), Stereotyping and prejudice (pp. 53–70). New York: Psychology Press.

Cunningham, M. D., & Sorensen, J. R. (2010). Improbable predictions at capital sentencing: Contrasting prison violence outcomes. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 38 (1), 61–72.

Cunningham, M. D., & Vigen, M. P. (2002). Death row inmate characteristics, adjustment, and confinement: A critical review of the literature. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20 (1–2), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.473

Daftary-Kapur, T., Penrod, S. D., O’Connor, M., & Wallace, B. (2014). Examining pretrial publicity in a shadow jury paradigm: Issues of slant, quantity, persistence and generalizability. Law and Human Behavior, 38 (5), 462–477. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000081

Damore, D. F., & Lang, R. E. (2016). Beyond density & diversity: Understanding the socio-cultural geography of contemporary presidential elections . Las Vegas, NV: Brookings Mountain West.

Davis, E., & Snell, T. L. (2018). Capital punishment, 2016 (report no. NCJ 251430) . Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Death Penalty Information Center. (2019). Facts about the death penalty . Retrieved from https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/documents/FactSheet.pdf

Death Penalty Information Center. (2020a). Executions by state and region since 1976 . Retrieved from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/executions-overview/number-of-executions-by-state-and-region-since-1976

Death Penalty Information Center (2020b). Death sentences in the United States since 1977. Retrieved from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/sentencing-data/death-sentences-in-the-united-states-from-1977-by-state-and-by-year

Death Penalty Information Center (2020c). Racial demographics . Retrieved from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row/overview/demographics

Death Penalty Information Center (2020d). Aggravating factors by state . Retrieved from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/crimes-punishable-by-death/aggravating-factors-by-state

Death Penalty Information Center (2020e). Women’s death sentences since 1973: Number and geography . Retrieved from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row/women/womens-death-sentences-since-1973-number-and-geography

Death Penalty Information Center (2020f). Time on death row . Retrieved from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row/death-row-time-on-death-row

Death Penalty Information Center (2020g). Life without parole . Retrieved from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/sentencing-alternatives/life-without-parole

Death Penalty Information Center (2020h). LWOP post-repeal . Retrieved from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/lwop-post-repeal

Deise, J. E., & Paternoster, R. (2013). More than a ’quick glimpse in the life’: The relationship between victim impact evidence and death sentencing. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 40 , 2012–2050.

Denno, D. W. (2011). Courts’ increasing consideration of behavioral genetics evidence in criminal cases: Results of a longitudinal study. Michigan State Law Review, 2011 , 967–1047.

Denno, D. W. (2013). What real-world criminal cases tell us about genetics evidence. Hastings Law Journal, 64 , 1591–1759.

Devine, D. J. (2012). Jury decision-making: The state of the science . New York: New York University Press.

Devine, D. J., & Caughlin, D. E. (2014). Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20 (2), 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000006

Dhont, K., Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2013). The intergenerational transmission of need for closure underlies the transmission of authoritarianism and anti-immigrant prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences, 54 (6), 779–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.016

Diamond, S. S., Rose, R. R., & Murphy, B. (2006). Revisiting the unanimity requirement: The behavior of the non-unanimous civil jury. Northwestern University Law Review, 100 , 201–230.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Science, 11 (4), 315–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00262

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36 , 1–52.

Durkheim, E. (1966). The rules of sociological method . New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1895).

Edens, J. F., Colwell, L. H., Desforges, D. M., & Fernandez, K. E. (2005). The impact of mental health evidence on support for capital punishment: Are defendants labeled psychopathic considered more deserving of death? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23 (5), 603–625. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.660

Ehrhard, S. (2009). Pleading guilty for life: An exploration of plea bargaining in the face of death (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest

Elias, N. (2000). The civilizing process: Sociogenetic and psychogenetic investigations . Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. (Original work published 1939).

Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 159–184). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (2), 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.390

Espinoza, R. K. E., & Willis-Esqueda, C. (2015). The influence of mitigation evidence, ethnicity, and SES on death penalty decisions by European American and Latino venire persons. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21 (2). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037646

Espinoza, R. K. E., Willis-Esqueda, C., Toscano, S., & Coons, J. (2015). The impact of ethnicity, immigration status, and socioeconomic status on juror decision making. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 13 (3), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2014.984044

Espy, M. W., & Smykla, J. O. (2016). Executions in the United States, 1608–2002: The ESPY file . Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08451.v5

Fazel, S., Hayes, A. J., Bartellas, K., Clerici, M., & Trestman, R. (2016). Mental health of prisoners: Prevalence, adverse outcomes, and interventions. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3 , 871–881.

Fincher, C. L., & Thornhill, R. (2012). Parasite-stress promotes in-group assortative sociality: The cases of strong family ties and heightened religiosity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35 (2), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11000021

Fleury-Steiner, B., & Argothy, V. (2004). Lethal borders: Elucidating jurors’ racialized discipline to punish in Latino defendant death cases. Punishment and Society, 6 (1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474504039092

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison . New York: Vintage Books.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, S. F. (2005). Understanding and addressing contemporary racism: From aversive racism to the common in-group identity model. Journal of Social Issues, 61 (3), 615–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00424.x

Gallup (2020). Death penalty. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx

Garcia-Dubus, E. (2016). The effect of attitudes towards the death penalty on forensic clinical judgments of competency for execution (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest.

Gaydon, L. B., & Miller, M. K. (2007). Older people in the justice system: How the system treats older people in trials, during imprisonment, and on death row. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 25 , 677–699.

Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117 (1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21

Gillespie, L. K., Smith, M. D., Bjerregaard, B., & Fogel, S. J. (2014). Examining the impact of proximate culpability mitigation in capital punishment sentencing recommendations: The influence of mental health mitigators. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39 (4), 698–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9255-5

Goldberg, A. J., & Dershowitz, A. M. (1970). Declaring the death penalty unconstitutional. Harvard Law Review, 83 , 1773–1819.

Gordon, N., & Greene, E. (2018). Nature, nurture, and capital punishment: How evidence of a genetic–environment interaction, future dangerousness, and deliberation affect sentencing decisions. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36 (1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2306

Gould, J. B., & Greenman, L. (2010). Report to the Committee on Defender Services Judicial Conference of the United States update on the cost and quality of defense representation in federal death penalty cases . Retrieved from http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/fdpc2010.pdf

Gould, J. B., & Leon, K. S. (2017). A culture that is hard to defend: Extralegal factors in federal death penalty cases. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 107 (4), 643–686.

Gross, S. R. (1996). The risks of death: Why erroneous convictions are common in capital cases. Buffalo Law Review, 44 , 469–500.

Gross, S. R., O’Brien, B., Hu, C., & Kennedy, E. H. (2014). Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111 (20), 7230–7235. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306417111

Hagan, J., Levi, R., & Dinovitzer, R. (2008). The symbolic violence of the crime-immigration nexus: Migrant mythologies in the Americas. Criminology & Public Policy, 7 (1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2008.00493.x

Haidt, J., Graham, J., & Joseph, C. (2009). Above and below left-right: Ideological narratives and moral foundations. Psychological Inquiry, 20 (2–3), 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400903028573

Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133 (4), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1162/0011526042365555

Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2007). The moral mind: How five sets of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, & S. Stich (Eds.), The innate mind (Vol. 3, pp. 367–392). New York: Oxford University Press.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044355

Haney, C. (1997). Violence and the capital jury: Mechanisms of moral disengagement and the impulse to condemn to death. Stanford Law Review, 49 , 1447–1607.

Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” confinement. Crime & Delinquency, 49 (1), 124–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128702239239

Haney, C. (2005). Death by design: Capital punishment as a social psychological system . New York: Oxford University Press.

Haney, C. (2008). Evolving standards of decency: Advancing the nature and logic of capital mitigation. Hofstra Law Review, 36 , 835–882.

Haney, C., Hurtado, A., & Vega, L. (1994). ‘Modern’ death qualification: New data on its biasing effects. Law and Human Behavior, 18 (6), 619–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499328

Haney, C., & Lynch, M. (1997). Clarifying life and death matters: An analysis of instructional comprehension and penalty phase closing arguments. Law and Human Behavior, 21 (6), 575–595. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024804629759

Harnish, R. J., Bridges, R. K., & Gump, J. T. (2018). Predicting economic, social, and foreign policy conservatism: The role of right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, moral foundations orientation, and religious fundamentalism. Current Psychology, 37 (3), 668–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9552-x

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations . New York: Wiley.

Heuer, L., Penrod, S., & Kattan, A. (2007). The role of societal benefits and fairness concerns among decision makers and decision recipients. Law and Human Behavior, 31 (6), 573–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9084-2

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1998). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes . New York: Routledge.

Holmes, O. W., Jr. (1897). The path of the law. Harvard Law Review, 110 (5), 991–1009.

Horton, Y., Price, R., & Brown, E. (1999). Portrayal of minorities in the film, media and entertainment industries . Edge: Ethics of Development in a Global Environment. Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/mediarace/portrayal.htm

Hrynkiw, I. (2020, February 24). Vernon Madison, one of the longest serving Alabama death row inmates, dies . AL.com . Retrieved from https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2020/02/vernon-madison-one-of-the-longest-serving-alabama-death-row-inmate-dies.html

Human Rights Watch (2003). U.S. prisons and offenders with mental illness . Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1003/usa1003.pdf

Janicki, H., (1999). The effects of a defendant’s sex and gender stereotypes on capital punishment decisions (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest.

Jennings, W. G., Richards, T. N., Smith, M. D., Bjerregaard, B., & Fogel, S. J. (2014). A critical examination of the “White victim effect” and death penalty decision-making from a propensity score matching approach: The North Carolina experience. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42 , 384–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.05.004

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219–266). New York: Academic Press.

Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61 , 651–670. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.651

Kaba, F., Lewis, A., Glowa-Kollisch, S., Hadler, J., Lee, D., Alper, H., … Venters, H. (2014). Solitary confinement and risk of self-harm among jail inmates. American Journal of Public Health, 104 (3), 442–447.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., & Riemann, R. (2012). Left or right? Sources of political orientation: The roles of genetic factors, cultural transmission, assortative mating, and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102 (3), 633–645. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025560

Keil, T. J., & Vito, G. F. (2006). Capriciousness or fairness? Race and prosecutorial decisions to seek the death penalty in Kentucky. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 4 , 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1300/J222v04n03_02

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 192–238). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Kemmelmeier, M. (2010). Authoritarianism and its relationship with intuitive-experiential cognitive style and heuristic processing. Personality and Individual Differences, 48 (1), 44–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.08.012

Kirshenbaum, J. M., Yelderman, L. A., & Miller, M. K. (2020, March). The religious conversion and race of a defendant: Mock jurors’ decisions and perceptions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, New Orleans, LA.

Kolesar, N. A. (2011). Development of an instrument for content analysis of penalty-phase closing defense arguments (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest.

Koniaris, L. G., Zimmers, T. A., Lubarsky, D. A., & Sheldon, J. P. (2005). Inadequate anaesthesia in lethal injection for execution. The Lancet, 365 (9468), 1412–1414.

Kramer, J., Ulmer, J., & Zajac, G. (2017). Capital punishment decisions in Pennsylvania, 2000–2010: Implications for racial, ethnic, and other disparate impacts . Pennsylvania Interbranch Commission for Gender, Racial and Ethnic Fairness. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3148037

Krauss, D. A., & Lee, D. (2003). Deliberating on dangerousness and death: Jurors’ ability to differentiate between expert actuarial and clinical predictions of dangerousness. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 26 , 113–137.

Krauss, D. A., Lieberman, J. D., & Olson, J. (2004). The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 22 , 801–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.621

Krauss, D. A., & Sales, B. (2001). The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7 , 267–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.7.2.267

Kupers, T. A. (2018). Waiting alone to die. In H. Toch, J. R. Acker, & V. M. Bonventre (Eds.), Living on death row: The psychology of waiting to die (pp. 60–79). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kuziemko, I. (2006). Does the threat of the death penalty affect plea bargaining in murder cases? Evidence from New York’s 1995 reinstatement of capital punishment. American Law and Economics Review, 8 , 116–142. https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahj005

Lieberman, J. D. (2002). Head over the heart or heart over the head? Cognitive-experiential self- theory and extralegal heuristics in juror decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32 (12), 2526–2553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02755.x

Livingston, T. N., Rerick, P. O., & Miller, M. K. (2019). Psychology explains how gender relates to perceptions and outcomes at trial. In B. H. Bornstein & M. K. Miller (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (Vol. 4, pp. 136–173). New York: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Logan, D. D. (1983a). Why this man deserves to die: Themes identified in prosecution arguments in recent capital 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.

Logan, W. A. (1999). When balance and fairness collide: An argument for execution impact evidence in capital trials. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 33 (1–2), 1–56.

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. 157–181). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2000). Discrimination and instructional comprehension: Guided discretion, racial bias, and the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior, 24 (3), 337–358. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005588221761

Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2009). Capital jury deliberation: Effects on death sentencing, comprehension, and discrimination. Law and Human Behavior, 33 (6), 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9168-2

Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2011). Mapping the racial bias of the white male capital juror: Jury composition and the “empathic divide”. Law and Society Review, 45 (1), 69–102. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/23011959

Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2015). Emotion, authority, and death: (Raced) negotiations in mock capital jury deliberations. Law & Social Inquiry, 40 (2), 377–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12099

Masotto, M. (2014). “Death is different”: Limiting health care for death row inmates. Health Matrix: The Journal of Law-Medicine, 24 , 317–344.

Miller, M. K. (2006). Religion in criminal justice . New York: LFB.

Miller, M. K., Blumenthal, J. A., & Chamberlain, J. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of community sentiment . New York, NY: Springer.

Miller, M. K., & Bornstein, B. H. (2005). Religious appeals in closing arguments: Impermissible input or benign banter? Law and Psychology Review, 29 , 29–61.

Miller, M. K., & Bornstein, B. H. (2006). The use of religion in death penalty sentencing trials. Law and Human Behavior, 30 (6), 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9056-6

Miller, M. K., & Chamberlain, J. (2015). “There ought to be a law!”: Understanding community sentiment. In M. K. Miller, J. A. Blumenthal, & J. Chamberlain (Eds.), Handbook of community sentiment (pp. 3–28). New York, NY: Springer.

Miller, M. K., Clark, J., & Alvarez, M. J. (2020). Exploring the boundaries of societally acceptable bias expression toward Muslim and atheist defendants in four mock-juror experiments. The Social Science Journal . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.09.004

Miller, M. K., & Hayward, R. D. (2008). Religious characteristics and the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior, 32 , 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9090-z

Miller, M. K., Rauch, J., & Kaplan, T. (2016). Gender differences in movie superheroes’ roles, appearances, and violence. Ada: Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology, 10 . https://doi.org/10.7264/N3HX19ZK

Miller, M. K., Wood, S., & Chomos, J. C. (2014). Relationships between support for the death penalty and cognitive processing: A comparison of students and community members. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41 (6), 731–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813509369

Minero, L. P., & Espinoza, R. K. E. (2016). The influence of defendant immigration status, country of origin, and ethnicity on juror decisions: An aversive racism explanation for juror bias. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 38 (1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986315620374

Mitchell, T. L., Haw, R. M., Pfeifer, J. E., & Meissner, C. A. (2005). Racial bias in mock juror decision-making: A meta-analytic review of defendant treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 29 (6), 621–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-8122-9

Myers, B., Johnson, S., & Nuñez, N. (2018). Victim impact statements in capital sentencing: 25 years post- Payne. In M. K, Miller & B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Advances in Psychology and Law (Vol. 3, pp. 41–76). New York: Springer.

Neal, T. M. S. (2010). Choosing the lesser of two evils: A framework for considering the ethics of competency-for-execution evaluations. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 10 (2), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228930903446724

Neal, T. M. S. (2016). Are forensic experts already biased before adversarial legal parties hire them? PLoS One, 11 (4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154434

Neuschatz, J. S., Lawson, D. S., Swanner, J. K., Meissner, C. A., & Neuschatz, J. S. (2008). The effects of accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants on jury decision-making. Law and Human Behavior, 32 , 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9100-1

Nuñez, N, Egan-Wright, D., Kehn, A., & Myers, B. (2011, March). Impact of different methods of victims impact statement delivery at capital trials: Emotionality of statements and its impact on sentencing decisions. Talk presented at the 4th International Congress of Psychology and Law, Miami, FL.

Nuñez, N., Myers, B., Wilkowski, B. M., & Schweitzer, K. (2017). The impact of angry versus sad victim impact statements on mock jurors’ sentencing decisions in a capital trial. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44 , 862–886. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816689809

O’Neil, K. M., Patry, M. W., & Penrod, S. D. (2004). Exploring the effects of attitudes toward the death penalty on capital sentencing verdicts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10 (4), 443–470. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.443

Ogletree, Jr., C., & Sarat, A. (Eds.) (2012). Life without parole: America’s new death penalty? (Charles Hamilton Houston Institute series on race and justice). New York: New York University Press.

Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (6), 972–987. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.972

Paternoster, R., Brame, R., & Bacon, S. (2008). The death penalty: America’s experience with capital punishment . New York: Oxford University Press.

Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Bacon, S., & Ditchfield, A. (2004). Justice by geography and race: The administration of the death penalty in Maryland, 1978–1999. Margins: Maryland’s Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class, 4 , 1–97.

Paternoster, R., & Deise, J. (2011). A heavy thumb on the scale: The effect of victim impact evidence on capital decision making. Criminology, 49 , 129–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00220.x

Patterson, R., & Hughes, K. (2008). Review of completed suicides in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 1999 to 2004. Psychiatric Services, 59 (6), 676–682. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.2008.59.6.676

Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 (2), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.189

Petersen, N. (2017). Examining the sources of racial bias in potentially capital cases: A case study of police and prosecutorial discretion. Race and Justice, 7 , 7–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368716645842

Pew Research Center (2014). Religious landscape study . Retrieved from https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/

Pierce, G. L., Radelet, M. L., Posick, C., & Lyman, T. (2014). Race and the construction of evidence in homicide cases. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 771–786. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9259-1

Pinker, S. (2012). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined . New York: Penguin Books.

Pirelli, G., & Zapf, P. A. (2008). An investigation of psychologists’ practices and attitudes toward participation in capital evaluations. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 8 (1), 39–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228930801947294

Platania, J., & Moran, G. (1999). Due process and the death penalty: The role of prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument in capital trials. Law and Human Behavior, 23 (4), 471–486. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022364132399

Platania, J., & Small, R. (2010). Instructions as a safeguard against prosecutorial misconduct. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 6 , 1–14.

Plumm, K. M., & Leighton, K. N. (2019). Sexual orientation and gender bias motivated violent crimes. In B. H. Bornstein & M. K. Miller (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (Vol. 4, pp. 175–196). New York: Springer.

Punyanunt-Carter, N. (2008). The perceived realism of African American portrayals on television. Howard Journal of Communications, 19 (3), 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646170802218263

Radelet, M. L., Bedau, H. A., & Putnam, C. E. (1992). In spite of innocence: Erroneous convictions in capital cases . Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Razmyar, S., & Reeve, C. (2013). Individual differences in religiosity as a function of cognitive ability and cognitive style. Intelligence, 41 (5), 667–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.09.003

Richards, T. N., Bjerregaard, B. E., Cochran, J., Smith, M. D., & Fogel, S. J. (2016). Predictors of death sentencing for minority, equal, and majority female juries in capital murder trials. Women & Criminal Justice, 26 (4), 260–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2015.1115802

Richards, T. N., Smith, M. D., Jennings, W. G., Bjerregaard, B. E., & Fogel, S. J. (2014). An examination of defendant sex disparity in capital sentencing: A propensity score matching approach. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39 , 681–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9253-7

Saks, M., Schweitzer, N., Aharoni, E., & Kiehl, K. (2014). The impact of neuroimages in the sentencing phase of capital trials. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 11 , 105–131.

Sarat, A., Blumstein, L., Jones, A., Richard, H., & Sprung-Keyser, M. (2014). Gruesome spectacles: Botched executions and America’s death penalty . Stanford, CA: Stanford Law Books.

Sargent, M. J. (2004). Less thought, more punishment: Need for cognition predicts support for punitive responses to crime. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30 (11), 1485–1493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264481

Scheb, J. M., Lyons, W., & Waggers, K. A. (2008). Race, prosecutors, and juries: The death penalty in Tennessee. The Justice System Journal, 29 (3), 338–347. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/27977410

Schwitzgebel, E. (2019). Belief. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2019 ed.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/

Scurich, N., & John, R. (2017). Jurors’ presumption of innocence. The Journal of Legal Studies, 46 (1), 187–206.

Shannon, B. D., & Scarano, V. R. (2013). Incompetency to be executed: Continuing ethical challenges & time for a change in Texas. Texas Tech Law Review, 45 , 419–1073.

Shatz, S. F., & Shatz, N. R. (2011). Chivalry is not dead: Murder, gender, and the death penalty. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice, 27 , 64–112.

Smith, D. L. (2011). Less than human: Why we demean, enslave, and exterminate others . New York: Saint Martin’s Press.

Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2000). Race in the courtroom: Perceptions of guilt and dispositional attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (11), 1367–1379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200263005

Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2001). White juror bias: An investigation of racial prejudice against Black defendants in the American courtroom. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7 (1), 201–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.201

Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2009). “Race salience” in juror decision-making: Misconceptions, clarifications, and unanswered questions. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27 (4), 599–609. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.877

Songer, M. J., & Unah, I. (2006). The effect of race, gender, and location on prosecutorial decisions to seek the death penalty in South Carolina. South Carolina Law Review, 58 (1), 161–210.

Summers, A., Hayward, R. D., & Miller, M. K. (2010). Death qualification as systematic exclusion of jurors with certain religious characteristics and other characteristics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40 , 3218–3234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00698.x

Suonpää, K., & Savolainen, J. (2019). When a woman kills her man: Gender and victim precipitation in homicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34 (11), 2398–2413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519834987

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 33–48). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Tallon, J., Daftary-Kapur, T., & Penrod, S. (2015). Defendant remorse and publicity in capital trials: Is seeing truly believing? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42 (12), 1282–1302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815602500

Tan, A., Fujioka, Y., & Lucht, N. (1997). Native American stereotypes, TV portrayals, and personal contact. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 74 (2), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909707400203

Terrizzi, J. A., Jr., Shook, N. J., & McDaniel, M. A. (2013). The behavioral immune system and social conservatism: A meta-analysis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34 (2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.10.003

Thomsen, J. (2019, April 15). Supreme Court won’t hear death penalty appeal alleging anti-gay remarks from jurors. The Hill. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/438893-supreme-court-passes-on-death-penalty-case-of-gay-man-alleging

Thornhill, R., & Fincher, C. L. (2014). The parasite-stress theory of values and sociality: Infectious disease, history and human values worldwide . Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08040-6

Toch, H., Acker, J. R., & Bonventre, V. M. (Eds.). (2018). Living on death row: The psychology of waiting to die . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (5), 830–838. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.830

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement . Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7 (4), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07

Unah, I. (2009). Choosing those who will die: The effect of race, gender, and law in prosecutorial decision to seek the death penalty in Durham County, North Carolina. Michigan Journal of Race and Law, 15 , 135–179. Retrieved from https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol15/iss1/4/

United States Census Bureau (2019). American community survey 5-year estimates . Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

Van Leeuwen, F., Park, J. H., Koenig, B. L., & Graham, J. (2012). Regional variation in pathogen prevalence predicts endorsement of group-focused moral concerns. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33 (5), 429–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.12.005

Vaughan, T. J., & Holleran, L. B. (2020). Examining jurors’ ability to meet constitutional requirement of narrowing in capital sentencing. Behavioral Sciences & The Law . https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2464

Vaughan, T. J., Holleran, L. B., & Silver, J. R. (2019). Applying moral foundations theory to the explanation of capital jurors’ sentencing decisions. Justice Quarterly . https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1537400

Vito, G. F., Higgins, G. E., & Vito, A. G. (2014). Capital sentencing in Kentucky, 2000–2010. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39 (4), 753–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9258-2

Waters, N. L., & Hans, V. P. (2009). A jury of one: Opinion formation, conformity, and dissent on juries. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6 (3), 513–540.

Welch, K. (2007). Black criminal stereotypes and racial profiling. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23 , 276–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986207306870

West, M. P. (2018, November). Are post-Gregg death sentences “wantonly” and “freakishly” imposed? A case study in Nevada. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, GA.

West, M. P., Boppre, B., Miller, M. K., & Barchard, K. (2019). The effects of impact statements on jurors’ decisions and perceptions of the victim and defendant. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 15 (2), 185–200.

West, M. P., & Miller, M. K. (in press). Psychology and the evolution of the death penalty. In R. Roesch (Ed.), Psychology and law: A volume of the Routledge encyclopedia of psychology in the real world . New York: Routledge.

West, M. P., Wood, E. F., Casas, J. B., & Miller, M. K. (2017). The legal and methodological implications of death qualification operationalization. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 13 (1), 18–32.

West, M. P., Wood, E. F., Miller, M. K., & Bornstein, B. H. (2020). How mock jurors’ cognitive processing and defendants’ immigrant status and ethnicity relate to decisions in capital trials. Journal of Experimental Criminology . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-020-09411-4

West, M. P., Yelderman, L. A., & Miller, M. K. (2018). Gender differences in the evaluation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances: The mediating role of attributional complexity. Psychology Crime and Law . https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1438432

White, L. T. (1987). Juror decision making in the capital penalty trial: An analysis of crimes and defense strategies. Law and Human Behavior, 11 (2), 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01040445

Williams, P., & Arkin, D. (2019, July 25). AG Barr orders reinstatement of the federal death penalty. NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/ag-barr-orders-reinstatement-federal-death-penalty-n1034451

Wilper, A. P., Woolhandler, S., Boyd, W., Lasser, K. E., McCormick, D., Bor, D. H., & Himmelstein, D. U. (2009). The health and health care of US prisoners: Results of a nationwide survey. The American Journal of Public Health, 99 (4), 666–672.

Winick, B. J. (1992). Competency to be executed: A therapeutic jurisprudence perspective. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 10 (3), 317–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370100304

Woodford, J. (2018). Rethinking classification, programming, and housing for death row inmates. In H. Toch, J. R. Acker, & V. M. Bonventre (Eds.), Living on death row: The psychology of waiting to die (pp. 38–59). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Xiong, J., Liu, S., & Liang, B. (2018). Criminal defense and judicial sentencing in China’s death penalty cases. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24 (4), 414–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1390114

Yelderman, L. A. (2019). Cognitive rigidity explains the relationship between religious fundamentalism and insanity defence attitudes. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 21 (7), 686–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2018.1551340

Yelderman, L. A., Miller, M. K., & Peoples, C. D. (2016). Understanding the effects of death qualification on jury trials. In M. K. Miller & B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (Vol. 2, pp. 27–54). New York: Springer.

Yelderman, L. A., West, M. P., & Miller, M. K. (2018). Death penalty decision-making: Fundamentalist beliefs and the evaluation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Legal and Criminological Psychology . https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12141

Zapf, P. A. (2009). Elucidating the contours of competency for execution: The implications of Ford and Panetti for assessment. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 37 (2–3), 269–307.

Zapf, P. A., Boccaccini, M. T., & Brodsky, S. L. (2003). Assessment of competency for execution: Professional guidelines and an evaluation checklist. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21 , 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.491

Zelinsky, W. (1973). The cultural geography of the United States . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Legal References

Atkins v. Virginia , 536 U.S. 304, 122 S. Ct. 2242, 153 L. Ed. 2d 335 (2002).

Barefoot v. Estelle , 463 U.S. 880, 103 S. Ct. 3383, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1090 (1983).

Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986).

Bucklew v. Precythe , 139 S. Ct. 1112, 203 L. Ed. 2d 521, 587 U.S. (2019).

Dusky v. United States , 362 U.S. 402, 80 S. Ct. 788, 4 L. Ed. 2d 824 (1960).

Ford v. Wainwright , 477 U.S. 399, 106 S. Ct. 2595, 91 L. Ed. 2d 335 (1986).

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S. Ct. 2726, 33 L. Ed. 2d 346 (1972).

Gregg v. Georgia , 428 U.S. 153, 96 S. Ct. 2909, 49 L. Ed. 2d 859 (1976).

Hurst v. Florida , 136 S. Ct. 616, 193 L. Ed. 2d 504, 577 U.S. (2016).

J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. TB , 511 U.S. 127, 114 S. Ct. 1419, 128 L. Ed. 2d 89 (1994).

Kennedy v. Louisiana , 554 U.S. 407, 128 S. Ct. 2641, 171 L. Ed. 2d 525 (2008).

Lackey v. Texas , 514 U.S. 1045, 115 S. Ct. 1421, 131 L. Ed. 2d 304 (1995).

Lockett v. Ohio , 438 U.S. 586, 98 S. Ct. 2954, 57 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1978).

Madison v. Alabama , 139 S. Ct. 718, 586 U.S., 203 L. Ed. 2d 103 (2019).

McCleskey v. Kemp , 481 U.S. 279, 107 S. Ct. 1756, 95 L. Ed. 2d 262 (1987).

Miller v. Alabama , 132 S. Ct. 2455, 567 U.S. 460, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012).

Morgan v. Illinois , 504 U.S. 719, 112 S. Ct. 2222, 119 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1992).

Panetti v. Quarterman , 551 U.S. 930, 127 S. Ct. 2842, 168 L. Ed. 2d 662 (2007).

Rhines v. Young , 140 S. Ct. 8 (U.S. 2019).

Ring v. Arizona , 536 U.S. 584, 122 S. Ct. 2428, 153 L. Ed. 2d 556 (2002).

Roper v. Simmons , 543 U.S. 551, 125 S. Ct. 1183, 161 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2005).

State v. Poole , No. SC18-245 (Fla. Jan. 23, 2020).

Trop v. Dulles , 356 U.S. 86, 78 S. Ct. 590, 2 L. Ed. 2d 630 (1958).

United States v. Tsarnaev , No. 13-CR-10200-GAO (U.S. Dist. Mas. 2015)

Wainwright v. Witt , 469 U.S. 412, 105 S. Ct. 844, 83 L. Ed. 2d 841 (1985).

Witherspoon v. Illinois , 391 U.S. 510, 88 S. Ct. 1770, 20 L. Ed. 2d 776 (1968).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, USA

Matthew P. West

Criminal Justice Department and Interdisciplinary Social Psychology PhD Program, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, USA

Monica K. Miller

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew P. West .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Criminal Justice Department and Interdisciplinary Social Psychology PhD Program, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, USA

Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA

Brian H. Bornstein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

West, M.P., Miller, M.K. (2020). The Social Science of the Death Penalty: Before, during, and after Trial. In: Miller, M.K., Bornstein, B.H. (eds) Advances in Psychology and Law. Advances in Psychology and Law, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54678-6_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54678-6_7

Published : 24 November 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-54677-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-54678-6

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Deterrence and the Death Penalty (2012)

Chapter: 1 introduction.

Introduction

I n 1976 the Supreme Court decision Gregg v. Georgia (428 U.S. 153) ended the 4-year moratorium on executions that had resulted from its 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia (408 U.S. 238) . In Furman the Court had ruled that the death penalty, as then administered in the United States, constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Then, in Gregg , it had ruled that the death penalty is not, in all circumstances, cruel and unusual punishment, thereby opening the way for states to revise their capital punishment statutes to conform to the requirements of Gregg .

In the immediate aftermath of Gregg, a National Research Council report reviewed the evidence relating to the deterrent effect of the death penalty that had been published through the mid-1970s. That review was highly critical of the available research, concluding (1978, p. 9):

The flaws in the earlier analyses finding no effect and the sensitivity of the more recent analysis to minor variations in model specification and the serious temporal instability of the results lead the panel to conclude that available studies provide no useful evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment.

THE CURRENT DEBATE

During the 35 years since Gregg , and particularly in the past decade, many studies have renewed the attempt to estimate the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates. Most researchers have used post- Gregg data from the United States to examine the statistical association between

homicide rates and the legal status or the actual implementation of the death penalty.

The studies have reached widely varying, even contradictory, conclusions, and commentary on the findings has sometimes been acrimonious. Some researchers have concluded that deterrent effects are large and robust across datasets and model specifications. For example, Dezhbakhsh, Rubin, and Shepherd (2003, p. 344) concluded that:

Our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders with a margin of error of plus or minus ten. Tests show that results are not driven by tougher sentencing laws and are robust to many alternative specifications.

Similarly, Mocan and Gittings (2003, p. 453) stated the following:

The results show that each additional execution decreases homicides by about five, and each additional commutation increases homicides by the same amount, while an additional removal from death row generates one additional murder.

In 2004 testimony before Congress, Shepherd (2004, p. 1) summarized this line of evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment as follows:

Recent research on the relationship between capital punishment and crime has created a strong consensus among economists that capital punishment deters crime.

However, the claims that the evidence shows a substantial deterrent effect have been vigorously challenged. Kovandzic, Vieraitis, and Boots (2009, p. 803) concluded that:

Employing well-known econometric procedures for panel data analysis, our results provide no empirical support for the argument that the existence or application of the death penalty deters prospective offenders from committing homicide … policymakers should refrain from justifying its use by claiming that it is a deterrent to homicide and should consider less costly, more effective ways of addressing crime.

Others do not go so far as to claim that there is no deterrent effect, but instead argue that the findings supporting a deterrent effect are fragile, not robust. Donohue and Wolfers (2005, p. 794) reanalyzed several of the data sets used by the authors who claimed to have found robust deterrent effects and concluded that:

We find that the existing evidence for deterrence is surprisingly fragile, and even small changes in specifications yield dramatically different re-

sults. Our key insight is that the death penalty—at least as it has been implemented in the United States since Gregg ended the moratorium on executions—is applied so rarely that the number of homicides it can plausibly have caused or deterred cannot be reliably disentangled from the large year-to year changes in the homicide rate caused by other factors.

Berk (2005, p. 328) reached a similar conclusion:

… the results raise serious questions about whether anything useful about the deterrent value of the death penalty can ever be learned from an observational study with the data that are likely to be available.

Not surprisingly, the criticisms of the research claiming to have found deterrent effects have generated defenses of the research findings and the methodologies used, as well as counterclaims about the deficiencies in the methods used by the critics. For instance, in response to the Kovandzic, Vieraitis, and Boots (2009) claim of no deterrent effect, Rubin (2009, p. 858) argued that:

the weight of the evidence as well as the theoretical predictions both argue for deterrence, and econometrically flawed studies such as this article are insufficient to overthrow this presumption.

In response to Donohue and Wolfers (2005, 2009), Zimmerman (2009, p. 396) argued that:

This paper shows that many of D&W’s [Donohue and Wolfers] criticisms of Zimmerman’s original work do not hold up under scrutiny, and other authors have also rebutted D&W’s criticisms of their research.

Beyond disagreement about whether the research evidence shows a deterrent effect of capital punishment, some researchers claim to have found a brutalization effect from state-sanctioned executions such that capital punishment actually increases homicide rates (see, e.g., Cochran and Chamlin, 2000; Thomson, 1999). Evidence in support of a brutalization effect is mostly the work of sociologists, but it is notable that in her latter work Shepherd also concluded that brutalization effects may be present (Shepherd, 2005).

COMMITTEE CHARGE AND SCOPE OF WORK

The Committee on Deterrence and the Death Penalty was organized against this backdrop of conflicting claims about the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates, with the following charge:

This study will assess the evidence on the deterrent effect of the death penalty—whether the threat of execution prevents homicides. The focus will be on studies completed since an earlier National Research Council assessment (National Research Council, 1978). A major objective of this study is to evaluate underlying reasons for the differing conclusions in more recent empirical studies about the effects of the legal status and actual practice of the death penalty on criminal homicide rates. The committee will develop a report about what can be concluded from these studies and also draw conclusions about the potential for future work to improve upon the quality of existing evidence.

Issues and questions to be examined include the following:

1.   Does the available evidence provide a reasonable basis for drawing conclusions about the magnitude of capital punishment’s effect on homicide rates?

2.   Are there differences among the extant analyses that provide a basis for resolving the differences in findings? Are the differences in findings due to inherent limitations in the data? Are there existing statistical methods and/or theoretical perspectives that have yet to be applied that can better address the deterrence question? Are the limitations of existing evidence reflective of a lack of information about the social, economic, and political underpinnings of homicide rates and/or the administration of capital punishment that first must be resolved before the deterrent effect of capital punishment can be determined?

3.   Do potential remedies to shortcomings in the evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment have broader applicability for research on the deterrent effect of noncapital sanctions?

In addressing those questions, we focused on the studies that have been undertaken since the earlier assessment (National Research Council, 1978). That assessment has stood largely unchallenged: none of the recent work, whatever its conclusion regarding deterrence, relies on the earlier studies criticized in that report or attempts to rehabilitate the value of those studies.

It is important to make clear what is not in the committee’s charge. Deterrence is but one of many considerations relevant to deciding whether the death penalty is good public policy. Not all supporters of capital punishment base their argument on deterrent effects, and not all opponents would be affected by persuasive evidence of such effects. The case for capital punishment is sometimes based on normative retributive arguments that the death penalty is the only appropriate and proportional response to especially heinous crimes; the case against it is sometimes based on

similarly normative claims that the sanctity of human life precludes state-sanctioned killings, regardless of any possible social benefits of capital punishment. Separate from normative considerations, deterrence is not the only empirical issue relevant to the debate over capital punishment. Other considerations include whether capital punishment can be administered in a nondiscriminatory and consistent fashion, whether the risk of a mistaken execution of an innocent person is acceptably small, and the cost of administering the death penalty in comparison with other sanction alternatives.

Although there is empirical evidence on the issues of discrimination, mistakes, and cost, the charge to the committee does not include these questions. Nor have we been charged with rendering an overall judgment on whether capital punishment is good public policy. We have been tasked only with assessing the scientific quality of the post- Gregg evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment and making recommendations for improving the scientific quality and policy relevance of future research.

In including recommendations for future research, the study’s statement of task recognized that potential remedies to shortcomings in the evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment on homicide might also be used in the study of the crime prevention effects of noncapital sanctions. Thus, this report also offers recommendations for improving the scientific quality and policy relevance of that research.

The post- Gregg studies can be divided into two types on the basis of the type of data analyzed. Panel data studies analyze sets of states or counties measured over time, usually from about 1970 to 2000. These studies relate homicide rates over time and the jurisdictions covered to the legal status of capital punishment or the frequency of executions or both. Time-series studies generally cover only a single geographic unit, which may be as large as a nation or as small as a city. These studies usually examine whether there are short-term changes in homicide rates in that geographic unit in the aftermath of an execution. We review and critique these two types of studies separately because their design and statistical methods are quite different.

Assessing the deterrent effect of the death penalty is much more than a question of interest to social science research. It is a matter of importance to U.S. society at large, and we expect that a potentially broad audience will want to understand how the committee reached its conclusions. Yet the research that the committee has had to appraise is a body of formal empirical work that makes use of highly technical concepts and techniques. The committee has been mindful of the importance of reaching as broad an audience as possible while meeting the fundamental requirement that the report be scientifically grounded. With this in mind, Chapters 1 , 2 , and 3 (as well as the summary) have been written for a broad, largely policy audience, largely avoiding technical language. In contrast, Chapters 4 and

5 include some exposition and analyses that are aimed for the researchers in the field.

Chapter 2 summarizes homicide rates and the legal status and practice of execution in the United States from 1950 to the present. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the possible mechanisms by which the legal status and practice of execution might affect homicide rates and also provides a nontechnical primer on some of the key challenges to making valid inferences about the deterrent effect of the death penalty. Chapters 4 and 5 review and assess the panel and time-series studies, respectively. Chapter 6 elaborates on the theoretical and statistical challenges to drawing valid conclusions about the deterrent effect of the death penalty, and presents our conclusions and recommendations for future research.

Berk, R. (2005). New claims about executions and general deterrence: Déjà vu all over again? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2 (2), 303-330.

Cochran, J.K., and Chamlin, M.B. (2000). Deterrence and brutalization: The dual effects of executions. Justice Quarterly, 17 (4), 685-706.

Dezhbakhsh, H., Rubin, P.H., and Shepherd, J.M. (2003). Does capital punishment have a deterrent effect? New evidence from postmoratorium panel data. American Law and Economics Review, 5 (2), 344-376.

Donohue, J.J., and Wolfers, J. (2005). Uses and abuses of empirical evidence in the death penalty debate. Stanford Law Review, 58 (3), 791-845.

Donohue, J.J., and Wolfers, J. (2009). Estimating the impact of the death penalty on murder. American Law and Economics Review, 11 (2), 249-309.

Kovandzic, T.V., Vieraitis, L.M., and Boots, D.P. (2009). Does the death penalty save lives? Criminology & Public Policy, 8 (4), 803-843.

Mocan, H.N., and Gittings, R.K. (2003). Getting off death row: Commuted sentences and the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Journal of Law & Economics, 46 (2), 453-478.

National Research Council. (1978). Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates . Panel on Research on Deterrent and Incapacitative Effects, A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, and D. Nagin (Eds.). Committee on Research on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Rubin, P.H. (2009). Don’t scrap the death penalty. Criminology & Public Policy, 8 (4), 853-859.

Shepherd, J.M. (2004). Testimony on Crime and Deterrence: Hearing on H.R. 2934, the Terrorist Penalties Enhancement Act of 2003 . Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, House Judiciary Committee. Available: http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/shepherd042104.pdf [January 2012].

Shepherd, J.M. (2005). Deterrence versus brutalization: Capital punishment’s differing impacts among states. Michigan Law Review, 104 (2), 203-255.

Thomson, E. (1999). Effects of an execution on homicides in California. Homicide Studies, 3 (2), 129-150.

Zimmerman, P.R. (2009). Statistical variability and the deterrent effect of the death penalty. American Law and Economics Review, 11 (2), 370-398.

Many studies during the past few decades have sought to determine whether the death penalty has any deterrent effect on homicide rates. Researchers have reached widely varying, even contradictory, conclusions. Some studies have concluded that the threat of capital punishment deters murders, saving large numbers of lives; other studies have concluded that executions actually increase homicides; still others, that executions have no effect on murder rates. Commentary among researchers, advocates, and policymakers on the scientific validity of the findings has sometimes been acrimonious.

Against this backdrop, the National Research Council report Deterrence and the Death Penalty assesses whether the available evidence provides a scientific basis for answering questions of if and how the death penalty affects homicide rates. This new report from the Committee on Law and Justice concludes that research to date on the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates is not useful in determining whether the death penalty increases, decreases, or has no effect on these rates. The key question is whether capital punishment is less or more effective as a deterrent than alternative punishments, such as a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Yet none of the research that has been done accounted for the possible effect of noncapital punishments on homicide rates. The report recommends new avenues of research that may provide broader insight into any deterrent effects from both capital and noncapital punishments.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous
• Next chapter >

Introduction

• Published: March 2008
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter presents the book's sources of information, its plan, and the approach taken towards capital punishment. This book began as a report to the United Nations Committee on Crime Prevention and Control in 1988. The chapter argues that it is necessary to approach the question of capital punishment from both normative and utilitarian points of view, and always in relation to how it is applied in practice. In essence, therefore, the case for retaining the death penalty — and thus resisting the movement to make its abolition an international norm — cannot rest solely on moral, cultural, or religious arguments. It would also have to be shown that it is useful and that it can be applied fairly, without mistakes, and without any degree of arbitrariness or cruelty unacceptable to contemporary social and legal values.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]
• Google Scholar Indexing

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• [email protected]

The Alliance for Citizen Engagement

Individuals convicted of the death penalty are found guilty of capital crimes, most notably, murder, espionage, and treason. In the 1600s, the American colonies used the death penalty as a punishment for most serious crimes. By the 1800s, many began to oppose the death penalty because they felt that it was inhumane and unconstitutional. The 1972 U.S. Supreme Court Case Furman v. Georgia deemed the death penalty unconstitutional in it’s current state, and found that the legal process needed to be revised. This resulted in the emergence of the bifurcation procedure. The bifurcation procedure involves two trials. 

• The guilt phase : A jury decides an individual’s guilt or innocence.
• The penalty phase : Following the guilt phase, the jury receives additional information in the form of aggravating and mitigating circumstances that are meant to aid in deciding if the individual is deserving of death. Aggravating circumstances are situations or factors that increase the individual’s deservingness of death while mitigating circumstances are situations that decrease the individual’s deservingness of death.

The death penalty is considered a state issue. 27 states use the death penalty and 23 states do not. The U.S. government has imposed moratorium in three death penalty states. This means that the individuals can still be sentenced to death but primarily only in the case of severe crimes, like murder.

Source: ABC News

In 2020, 18 countries implemented the death penalty, but most executions were concentrated in a few countries , namely China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and Egypt made up about 88% of executions . 

Arguments for the Death Penalty  

• Deterrence : Death is notably the harshest punishment practiced by the criminal justice system.  It is seen as a general deterrence because it prevents individuals from committing capital crimes. Ernest van den Haag, a professor at Jurisprudence at Fordham University, studied the topic of deterrence in terms of the death penalty and believes that since death is the most feared event for most people, it must have some effect in deterring crime. Furthermore, the death penalty specfically deters any future crime because it takes away the criminal’s ability to commit crimes after they are dead.
• Retribution : Those who support the death penalty from a retributionist perspective do so because they find that it serves the purpose of justice. If the death penalty did not exist as a punishment to those who commit capital offenses, they believe society would succumb to crime and violence. This perspective also supports Hammurabi’s code, or “an eye for an eye,” meaning that a crime will be equally matched with a punishment in which the criminal suffers the same pain as the victim. If an individual commits murder, he or she shall be put to death as punishment.

Arguments Against the Death Penalty

• Rebuttal to retribution : The legal system cannot rely on emotional impulses for solving problems because it is not a sufficient justification, especially for such a serious form of punishment. The criminal justice system should be held to higher standards that reflect a prioritization of life. Reducing the reasoning of taking an individual’s life to an emotional aspect is dehumanizing and it acts as a reflection of the entire justice system, and not just a focus on capital crimes punishment. 
• Innocence and wrongful convictions : There is strong evidence that proves some individuals have been wrongfully executed. According to the Execution Database , 185 people have been absolved from guilt and released from prison. Although some of the absolutions may have resulted from judicial and investigative errors, this number demonstrates the possibilty for error within the death penalty procedures.
• Arbitrariness and Discrimination : Defendants of disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to receive the death penalty than other groups. Black individuals convicted of a capital crime are 4.3 times more likely to receive the death penalty than white people. Since 1976, 158 black individuals have been executed by the death penalty for the murder of a white victim while 11 white people were executed for the murder of a black victim. The death penalty does not execute the worst offenders, rather it executes those who have the poorest defense. Those who do not have the resources to afford a lawyer are assigned a public defense lawyer, who is usually juggling multiple cases and unable to strongly focus on a single case.  
• Arbitrariness and Discrimination : Defendants of disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to receive the death penalty than other groups. Black individuals convicted of a capital crime are 4.3 times more likely to receive the death penalty than white people. Since 1976, 158 black individuals have been executed by the death penalty for the murder of a white victim while 11 white people were executed for the murder of a black victim. The death penalty does not execute tthe worst offenders, rather it executes those who have the poorest defense. Those who do not have the resources to afford a lawyer are assigned a public defense lawyer, who is usually juggling multiple cases and unable to strongly focus on a single one single case. 

Share this post

Give feedback on this brief.

• No, it used partisan or biased language
• No, it did not include an important perspective

Share non-partisan research  driven by the next generation with your community

Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty

Click the buttons below to view arguments and testimony on each topic.

The death penalty deters future murders.

Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice before killing for fear of losing their own life.

For years, criminologists analyzed murder rates to see if they fluctuated with the likelihood of convicted murderers being executed, but the results were inconclusive. Then in 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder. Similar results have been produced by disciples of Ehrlich in follow-up studies.

Moreover, even if some studies regarding deterrence are inconclusive, that is only because the death penalty is rarely used and takes years before an execution is actually carried out. Punishments which are swift and sure are the best deterrent. The fact that some states or countries which do not use the death penalty have lower murder rates than jurisdictions which do is not evidence of the failure of deterrence. States with high murder rates would have even higher rates if they did not use the death penalty.

Ernest van den Haag, a Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University who has studied the question of deterrence closely, wrote: “Even though statistical demonstrations are not conclusive, and perhaps cannot be, capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts. Whatever people fear most is likely to deter most. Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred. And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life sentence. Perhaps they will not be deterred. But they would certainly not be deterred by anything else. We owe all the protection we can give to law enforcers exposed to special risks.”

Finally, the death penalty certainly “deters” the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, this is a form of incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Vicious murderers must be killed to prevent them from murdering again, either in prison, or in society if they should get out. Both as a deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, the death penalty helps to prevent future crime.

Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies have been widely discredited. In fact, some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. Even most supporters of the death penalty now place little or no weight on deterrence as a serious justification for its continued use.

States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty.

The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively. As someone who presided over many of Texas’s executions, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox has remarked, “It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you’ll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse.”

There is no conclusive proof that the death penalty acts as a better deterrent than the threat of life imprisonment. A 2012 report released by the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies and based on a review of more than three decades of research, concluded that studies claiming a deterrent effect on murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. A survey of the former and present presidents of the country’s top academic criminological societies found that 84% of these experts rejected the notion that research had demonstrated any deterrent effect from the death penalty .

Once in prison, those serving life sentences often settle into a routine and are less of a threat to commit violence than other prisoners. Moreover, most states now have a sentence of life without parole. Prisoners who are given this sentence will never be released. Thus, the safety of society can be assured without using the death penalty.

Ernest van den Haag Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy, Fordham University. Excerpts from ” The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense,” (Harvard Law Review Association, 1986)

“Execution of those who have committed heinous murders may deter only one murder per year. If it does, it seems quite warranted. It is also the only fitting retribution for murder I can think of.”

“Most abolitionists acknowledge that they would continue to favor abolition even if the death penalty were shown to deter more murders than alternatives could deter. Abolitionists appear to value the life of a convicted murderer or, at least, his non-execution, more highly than they value the lives of the innocent victims who might be spared by deterring prospective murderers.

Deterrence is not altogether decisive for me either. I would favor retention of the death penalty as retribution even if it were shown that the threat of execution could not deter prospective murderers not already deterred by the threat of imprisonment. Still, I believe the death penalty, because of its finality, is more feared than imprisonment, and deters some prospective murderers not deterred by the thought of imprisonment. Sparing the lives of even a few prospective victims by deterring their murderers is more important than preserving the lives of convicted murderers because of the possibility, or even the probability, that executing them would not deter others. Whereas the life of the victims who might be saved are valuable, that of the murderer has only negative value, because of his crime. Surely the criminal law is meant to protect the lives of potential victims in preference to those of actual murderers.”

“We threaten punishments in order to deter crime. We impose them not only to make the threats credible but also as retribution (justice) for the crimes that were not deterred. Threats and punishments are necessary to deter and deterrence is a sufficient practical justification for them. Retribution is an independent moral justification. Although penalties can be unwise, repulsive, or inappropriate, and those punished can be pitiable, in a sense the infliction of legal punishment on a guilty person cannot be unjust. By committing the crime, the criminal volunteered to assume the risk of receiving a legal punishment that he could have avoided by not committing the crime. The punishment he suffers is the punishment he voluntarily risked suffering and, therefore, it is no more unjust to him than any other event for which one knowingly volunteers to assume the risk. Thus, the death penalty cannot be unjust to the guilty criminal.”

Full text can be found at PBS.org .

Hugo Adam Bedau (deceased) Austin Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, Tufts University Excerpts from “The Case Against The Death Penalty” (Copyright 1997, American Civil Liberties Union)

“Persons who commit murder and other crimes of personal violence either may or may not premeditate their crimes.

When crime is planned, the criminal ordinarily concentrates on escaping detection, arrest, and conviction. The threat of even the severest punishment will not discourage those who expect to escape detection and arrest. It is impossible to imagine how the threat of any punishment could prevent a crime that is not premeditated….

Most capital crimes are committed in the heat of the moment. Most capital crimes are committed during moments of great emotional stress or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, when logical thinking has been suspended. In such cases, violence is inflicted by persons heedless of the consequences to themselves as well as to others….

If, however, severe punishment can deter crime, then long-term imprisonment is severe enough to deter any rational person from committing a violent crime.

The vast preponderance of the evidence shows that the death penalty is no more effective than imprisonment in deterring murder and that it may even be an incitement to criminal violence. Death-penalty states as a group do not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death-penalty states….

On-duty police officers do not suffer a higher rate of criminal assault and homicide in abolitionist states than they do in death-penalty states. Between l973 and l984, for example, lethal assaults against police were not significantly more, or less, frequent in abolitionist states than in death-penalty states. There is ‘no support for the view that the death penalty provides a more effective deterrent to police homicides than alternative sanctions. Not for a single year was evidence found that police are safer in jurisdictions that provide for capital punishment.’ (Bailey and Peterson, Criminology (1987))

Prisoners and prison personnel do not suffer a higher rate of criminal assault and homicide from life-term prisoners in abolition states than they do in death-penalty states. Between 1992 and 1995, 176 inmates were murdered by other prisoners; the vast majority (84%) were killed in death penalty jurisdictions. During the same period about 2% of all assaults on prison staff were committed by inmates in abolition jurisdictions. Evidently, the threat of the death penalty ‘does not even exert an incremental deterrent effect over the threat of a lesser punishment in the abolitionist states.’ (Wolfson, in Bedau, ed., The Death Penalty in America, 3rd ed. (1982))

Actual experience thus establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty does not deter murder. No comparable body of evidence contradicts that conclusion.”

Click here for the full text from the ACLU website.

Retribution

A just society requires the taking of a life for a life.

When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed. Unless that balance is restored, society succumbs to a rule of violence. Only the taking of the murderer’s life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind.

Retribution has its basis in religious values, which have historically maintained that it is proper to take an “eye for an eye” and a life for a life.

Although the victim and the victim’s family cannot be restored to the status which preceded the murder, at least an execution brings closure to the murderer’s crime (and closure to the ordeal for the victim’s family) and ensures that the murderer will create no more victims.

For the most cruel and heinous crimes, the ones for which the death penalty is applied, offenders deserve the worst punishment under our system of law, and that is the death penalty. Any lesser punishment would undermine the value society places on protecting lives.

Robert Macy, District Attorney of Oklahoma City, described his concept of the need for retribution in one case: “In 1991, a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was then mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die.”

Retribution is another word for revenge. Although our first instinct may be to inflict immediate pain on someone who wrongs us, the standards of a mature society demand a more measured response.

The emotional impulse for revenge is not a sufficient justification for invoking a system of capital punishment, with all its accompanying problems and risks. Our laws and criminal justice system should lead us to higher principles that demonstrate a complete respect for life, even the life of a murderer. Encouraging our basest motives of revenge, which ends in another killing, extends the chain of violence. Allowing executions sanctions killing as a form of ‘pay-back.’

Many victims’ families denounce the use of the death penalty. Using an execution to try to right the wrong of their loss is an affront to them and only causes more pain. For example, Bud Welch’s daughter, Julie, was killed in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Although his first reaction was to wish that those who committed this terrible crime be killed, he ultimately realized that such killing “is simply vengeance; and it was vengeance that killed Julie…. Vengeance is a strong and natural emotion. But it has no place in our justice system.”

The notion of an eye for an eye, or a life for a life, is a simplistic one which our society has never endorsed. We do not allow torturing the torturer, or raping the rapist. Taking the life of a murderer is a similarly disproportionate punishment, especially in light of the fact that the U.S. executes only a small percentage of those convicted of murder, and these defendants are typically not the worst offenders but merely the ones with the fewest resources to defend themselves.

Louis P. Pojman Author and Professor of Philosophy, U.S. Military Academy. Excerpt from “The Death Penalty: For and Against,” (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1998)

“[Opponents of the capital punishment often put forth the following argument:] Perhaps the murderer deserves to die, but what authority does the state have to execute him or her? Both the Old and New Testament says, “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Prov. 25:21 and Romans 12:19). You need special authority to justify taking the life of a human being.

The objector fails to note that the New Testament passage continues with a support of the right of the state to execute criminals in the name of God: “Let every person be subjected to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment…. If you do wrong, be afraid, for [the authority] does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13: 1-4). So, according to the Bible, the authority to punish, which presumably includes the death penalty, comes from God.

But we need not appeal to a religious justification for capital punishment. We can site the state’s role in dispensing justice. Just as the state has the authority (and duty) to act justly in allocating scarce resources, in meeting minimal needs of its (deserving) citizens, in defending its citizens from violence and crime, and in not waging unjust wars; so too does it have the authority, flowing from its mission to promote justice and the good of its people, to punish the criminal. If the criminal, as one who has forfeited a right to life, deserves to be executed, especially if it will likely deter would-be murderers, the state has a duty to execute those convicted of first-degree murder.”

National Council of Synagogues and the Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops Excerpts from “To End the Death Penalty: A Report of the National Jewish/Catholic Consultation” (December, 1999)

“Some would argue that the death penalty is needed as a means of retributive justice, to balance out the crime with the punishment. This reflects a natural concern of society, and especially of victims and their families. Yet we believe that we are called to seek a higher road even while punishing the guilty, for example through long and in some cases life-long incarceration, so that the healing of all can ultimately take place.

Some would argue that the death penalty will teach society at large the seriousness of crime. Yet we say that teaching people to respond to violence with violence will, again, only breed more violence.

The strongest argument of all [in favor of the death penalty] is the deep pain and grief of the families of victims, and their quite natural desire to see punishment meted out to those who have plunged them into such agony. Yet it is the clear teaching of our traditions that this pain and suffering cannot be healed simply through the retribution of capital punishment or by vengeance. It is a difficult and long process of healing which comes about through personal growth and God’s grace. We agree that much more must be done by the religious community and by society at large to solace and care for the grieving families of the victims of violent crime.

Recent statements of the Reform and Conservative movements in Judaism, and of the U.S. Catholic Conference sum up well the increasingly strong convictions shared by Jews and Catholics…:

‘Respect for all human life and opposition to the violence in our society are at the root of our long-standing opposition (as bishops) to the death penalty. We see the death penalty as perpetuating a cycle of violence and promoting a sense of vengeance in our culture. As we said in Confronting the Culture of Violence: ‘We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing.’ We oppose capital punishment not just for what it does to those guilty of horrible crimes, but for what it does to all of us as a society. Increasing reliance on the death penalty diminishes all of us and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those convicted of their murders. The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life.’1

We affirm that we came to these conclusions because of our shared understanding of the sanctity of human life. We have committed ourselves to work together, and each within our own communities, toward ending the death penalty.” Endnote 1. Statement of the Administrative Committee of the United States Catholic Conference, March 24, 1999.

The risk of executing the innocent precludes the use of the death penalty.

The death penalty alone imposes an irrevocable sentence. Once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made. There is considerable evidence that many mistakes have been made in sentencing people to death. Since 1973, over 180 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged. During the same period of time, over 1,500 people have been executed. Thus, for every 8.3 people executed, we have found one person on death row who never should have been convicted. These statistics represent an intolerable risk of executing the innocent. If an automobile manufacturer operated with similar failure rates, it would be run out of business.

Our capital punishment system is unreliable. A study by Columbia University Law School found that two thirds of all capital trials contained serious errors. When the cases were retried, over 80% of the defendants were not sentenced to death and 7% were completely acquitted.

Many of the releases of innocent defendants from death row came about as a result of factors outside of the justice system. Recently, journalism students in Illinois were assigned to investigate the case of a man who was scheduled to be executed, after the system of appeals had rejected his legal claims. The students discovered that one witness had lied at the original trial, and they were able to find another man, who confessed to the crime on videotape and was later convicted of the murder. The innocent man who was released was very fortunate, but he was spared because of the informal efforts of concerned citizens, not because of the justice system.

In other cases, DNA testing has exonerated death row inmates. Here, too, the justice system had concluded that these defendants were guilty and deserving of the death penalty. DNA testing became available only in the early 1990s, due to advancements in science. If this testing had not been discovered until ten years later, many of these inmates would have been executed. And if DNA testing had been applied to earlier cases where inmates were executed in the 1970s and 80s, the odds are high that it would have proven that some of them were innocent as well.

Society takes many risks in which innocent lives can be lost. We build bridges, knowing that statistically some workers will be killed during construction; we take great precautions to reduce the number of unintended fatalities. But wrongful executions are a preventable risk. By substituting a sentence of life without parole, we meet society’s needs of punishment and protection without running the risk of an erroneous and irrevocable punishment.

There is no proof that any innocent person has actually been executed since increased safeguards and appeals were added to our death penalty system in the 1970s. Even if such executions have occurred, they are very rare. Imprisoning innocent people is also wrong, but we cannot empty the prisons because of that minimal risk. If improvements are needed in the system of representation, or in the use of scientific evidence such as DNA testing, then those reforms should be instituted. However, the need for reform is not a reason to abolish the death penalty.

Besides, many of the claims of innocence by those who have been released from death row are actually based on legal technicalities. Just because someone’s conviction is overturned years later and the prosecutor decides not to retry him, does not mean he is actually innocent.

If it can be shown that someone is innocent, surely a governor would grant clemency and spare the person. Hypothetical claims of innocence are usually just delaying tactics to put off the execution as long as possible. Given our thorough system of appeals through numerous state and federal courts, the execution of an innocent individual today is almost impossible. Even the theoretical execution of an innocent person can be justified because the death penalty saves lives by deterring other killings.

Gerald Kogan, Former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Excerpts from a speech given in Orlando, Florida, October 23, 1999 “[T]here is no question in my mind, and I can tell you this having seen the dynamics of our criminal justice system over the many years that I have been associated with it, [as] prosecutor, defense attorney, trial judge and Supreme Court Justice, that convinces me that we certainly have, in the past, executed those people who either didn’t fit the criteria for execution in the State of Florida or who, in fact, were, factually, not guilty of the crime for which they have been executed.

“And you can make these statements when you understand the dynamics of the criminal justice system, when you understand how the State makes deals with more culpable defendants in a capital case, offers them light sentences in exchange for their testimony against another participant or, in some cases, in fact, gives them immunity from prosecution so that they can secure their testimony; the use of jailhouse confessions, like people who say, ‘I was in the cell with so-and-so and they confessed to me,’ or using those particular confessions, the validity of which there has been great doubt. And yet, you see the uneven application of the death penalty where, in many instances, those that are the most culpable escape death and those that are the least culpable are victims of the death penalty. These things begin to weigh very heavily upon you. And under our system, this is the system we have. And that is, we are human beings administering an imperfect system.”

“And how about those people who are still sitting on death row today, who may be factually innocent but cannot prove their particular case very simply because there is no DNA evidence in their case that can be used to exonerate them? Of course, in most cases, you’re not going to have that kind of DNA evidence, so there is no way and there is no hope for them to be saved from what may be one of the biggest mistakes that our society can make.”

The entire speech by Justice Kogan is available here.

Paul G. Cassell Associate Professor of Law, University of Utah, College of Law, and former law clerk to Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. Statement before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights Concerning Claims of Innocence in Capital Cases (July 23, 1993)

“Given the fallibility of human judgments, the possibility exists that the use of capital punishment may result in the execution of an innocent person. The Senate Judiciary Committee has previously found this risk to be ‘minimal,’ a view shared by numerous scholars. As Justice Powell has noted commenting on the numerous state capital cases that have come before the Supreme Court, the ‘unprecedented safeguards’ already inherent in capital sentencing statutes ‘ensure a degree of care in the imposition of the sentence of death that can only be described as unique.’”

“Our present system of capital punishment limits the ultimate penalty to certain specifically-defined crimes and even then, permit the penalty of death only when the jury finds that the aggravating circumstances in the case outweigh all mitigating circumstances. The system further provides judicial review of capital cases. Finally, before capital sentences are carried out, the governor or other executive official will review the sentence to insure that it is a just one, a determination that undoubtedly considers the evidence of the condemned defendant’s guilt. Once all of those decisionmakers have agreed that a death sentence is appropriate, innocent lives would be lost from failure to impose the sentence.”

“Capital sentences, when carried out, save innocent lives by permanently incapacitating murderers. Some persons who commit capital homicide will slay other innocent persons if given the opportunity to do so. The death penalty is the most effective means of preventing such killers from repeating their crimes. The next most serious penalty, life imprisonment without possibility of parole, prevents murderers from committing some crimes but does not prevent them from murdering in prison.”

“The mistaken release of guilty murderers should be of far greater concern than the speculative and heretofore nonexistent risk of the mistaken execution of an innocent person.”

Full text can be found here.

Arbitrariness & Discrimination

The death penalty is applied unfairly and should not be used.

In practice, the death penalty does not single out the worst offenders. Rather, it selects an arbitrary group based on such irrational factors as the quality of the defense counsel, the county in which the crime was committed, or the race of the defendant or victim.

Almost all defendants facing the death penalty cannot afford their own attorney. Hence, they are dependent on the quality of the lawyers assigned by the state, many of whom lack experience in capital cases or are so underpaid that they fail to investigate the case properly. A poorly represented defendant is much more likely to be convicted and given a death sentence.

With respect to race, studies have repeatedly shown that a death sentence is far more likely where a white person is murdered than where a Black person is murdered. The death penalty is racially divisive because it appears to count white lives as more valuable than Black lives. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 296 Black defendants have been executed for the murder of a white victim, while only 31 white defendants have been executed for the murder of a Black victim. Such racial disparities have existed over the history of the death penalty and appear to be largely intractable.

It is arbitrary when someone in one county or state receives the death penalty, but someone who commits a comparable crime in another county or state is given a life sentence. Prosecutors have enormous discretion about when to seek the death penalty and when to settle for a plea bargain. Often those who can only afford a minimal defense are selected for the death penalty. Until race and other arbitrary factors, like economics and geography, can be eliminated as a determinant of who lives and who dies, the death penalty must not be used.

Discretion has always been an essential part of our system of justice. No one expects the prosecutor to pursue every possible offense or punishment, nor do we expect the same sentence to be imposed just because two crimes appear similar. Each crime is unique, both because the circumstances of each victim are different and because each defendant is different. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a mandatory death penalty which applied to everyone convicted of first degree murder would be unconstitutional. Hence, we must give prosecutors and juries some discretion.

In fact, more white people are executed in this country than black people. And even if blacks are disproportionately represented on death row, proportionately blacks commit more murders than whites. Moreover, the Supreme Court has rejected the use of statistical studies which claim racial bias as the sole reason for overturning a death sentence.

Even if the death penalty punishes some while sparing others, it does not follow that everyone should be spared. The guilty should still be punished appropriately, even if some do escape proper punishment unfairly. The death penalty should apply to killers of black people as well as to killers of whites. High paid, skillful lawyers should not be able to get some defendants off on technicalities. The existence of some systemic problems is no reason to abandon the whole death penalty system.

Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. President and Chief Executive Officer, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, Inc. Excerpt from “Legal Lynching: Racism, Injustice & the Death Penalty,” (Marlowe & Company, 1996)

“Who receives the death penalty has less to do with the violence of the crime than with the color of the criminal’s skin, or more often, the color of the victim’s skin. Murder — always tragic — seems to be a more heinous and despicable crime in some states than in others. Women who kill and who are killed are judged by different standards than are men who are murderers and victims.

The death penalty is essentially an arbitrary punishment. There are no objective rules or guidelines for when a prosecutor should seek the death penalty, when a jury should recommend it, and when a judge should give it. This lack of objective, measurable standards ensures that the application of the death penalty will be discriminatory against racial, gender, and ethnic groups.

The majority of Americans who support the death penalty believe, or wish to believe, that legitimate factors such as the violence and cruelty with which the crime was committed, a defendant’s culpability or history of violence, and the number of victims involved determine who is sentenced to life in prison and who receives the ultimate punishment. The numbers, however, tell a different story. They confirm the terrible truth that bias and discrimination warp our nation’s judicial system at the very time it matters most — in matters of life and death. The factors that determine who will live and who will die — race, sex, and geography — are the very same ones that blind justice was meant to ignore. This prejudicial distribution should be a moral outrage to every American.”

Justice Lewis Powell United States Supreme Court Justice excerpts from McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (footnotes and citations omitted)

(Mr. McCleskey, a black man, was convicted and sentenced to death in 1978 for killing a white police officer while robbing a store. Mr. McCleskey appealed his conviction and death sentence, claiming racial discrimination in the application of Georgia’s death penalty. He presented statistical analysis showing a pattern of sentencing disparities based primarily on the race of the victim. The analysis indicated that black defendants who killed white victims had the greatest likelihood of receiving the death penalty. Writing the majority opinion for the Supreme Court, Justice Powell held that statistical studies on race by themselves were an insufficient basis for overturning the death penalty.)

“[T]he claim that [t]his sentence rests on the irrelevant factor of race easily could be extended to apply to claims based on unexplained discrepancies that correlate to membership in other minority groups, and even to gender. Similarly, since [this] claim relates to the race of his victim, other claims could apply with equally logical force to statistical disparities that correlate with the race or sex of other actors in the criminal justice system, such as defense attorneys or judges. Also, there is no logical reason that such a claim need be limited to racial or sexual bias. If arbitrary and capricious punishment is the touchstone under the Eighth Amendment, such a claim could — at least in theory — be based upon any arbitrary variable, such as the defendant’s facial characteristics, or the physical attractiveness of the defendant or the victim, that some statistical study indicates may be influential in jury decision making. As these examples illustrate, there is no limiting principle to the type of challenge brought by McCleskey. The Constitution does not require that a State eliminate any demonstrable disparity that correlates with a potentially irrelevant factor in order to operate a criminal justice system that includes capital punishment. As we have stated specifically in the context of capital punishment, the Constitution does not ‘plac[e] totally unrealistic conditions on its use.’ (Gregg v. Georgia)”

The entire decision can be found here.

Finding Sources for Death Penalty Research

Barry Winiker/photolibrary/Getty Images

• Writing Research Papers
• Writing Essays
• English Grammar
• M.Ed., Education Administration, University of Georgia
• B.A., History, Armstrong State University

One of the most popular topics for an argument essay is the death penalty . When researching a topic for an argumentative essay , accuracy is important, which means the quality of your sources is important.

If you're writing a paper about the death penalty, you can start with this list of sources, which provide arguments for all sides of the topic.

Amnesty International Site

Amnesty International views the death penalty as "the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights." This website provides a gold mine of statistics and the latest breaking news on the subject.

Mental Illness on Death Row

Death Penalty Focus is an organization that aims to bring about the abolition of capital punishment and is a great resource for information. You will find evidence that many of the people executed over the past decades are affected by a form of mental illness or disability.

Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty

This extensive article provides an overview of arguments for and against the death penalty and offers a history of notable events that have shaped the discourse for activists and proponents.

Pro-Death Penalty Links

This page comes from ProDeathPenalty and contains a state-by-state guide to capital punishment resources. You'll also find a list of papers written by students on topics related to capital punishment. 

• 100 Persuasive Speech Topics for Students
• Capital Punishment: Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty
• Pros & Cons of the Death Penalty
• 5 Arguments in Favor of the Death Penalty
• Ethos, Logos, Pathos for Persuasion
• History of Capital Punishment in Canada
• Preparing an Argument Essay: Exploring Both Sides of an Issue
• Recent Legal History of the Death Penalty in America
• Tips on How to Write an Argumentative Essay
• The Death Penalty in the United States
• New Challenges to the Death Penalty
• 50 Argumentative Essay Topics
• Furman v. Georgia: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
• "The Penalty of Death" by H.L. Mencken
• The Best Interactive Debate Websites for Students and Teachers
• Coker v. Georgia: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact