|
Research article summary:
The role of death qualification in venirepersons evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials.
Abstract Extract:
Previous research has found that death qualification impacts jurors receptiveness to aggravating and mitigating circumstances (e.g., J. Luginbuhl & K. Middendorf, 1988). However, the purpose of this study was to investigate whether death qualification ... (Full abstract text below) Published 2002Apr
in Journal: Law Hum Behav
(Language : eng)
Full Pubmed Extract
This information was retrieved, real-time, on your behalf from the public area of the Pubmed website:
1. Law Hum Behav.
2002 Apr;26(2):175-84
The role of death qualification in venirepersons' evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials.
Butler BM, Moran G
Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami 33199, USA.
Previous research has found that death qualification impacts jurors' receptiveness to aggravating and mitigating circumstances (e.g., J. Luginbuhl & K. Middendorf, 1988). However, the purpose of this study was to investigate whether death qualification affects jurors' endorsements of aggravating and mitigating circumstances when Witt, rather than Witherspoon, is the legal standard for death qualification. Four hundred and fifty venirepersons from the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami, Florida completed a booklet of stimulus materials that contained the following: two death qualification questions; a case scenario that included a summary of the guilt and penalty phases of a capital case; a 26-item measure that required participants to endorse aggravators, nonstatutory mitigators, and statutory mitigators on a 6-point Likert scale; and standard demographic questions. Results indicated that death-qualified venirepersons, when compared to excludables, were more likely to endorse aggravating circumstances. Excludable participants, when compared to death-qualified venirepersons, were more likely to endorse nonstatutory mitigators. There was no significant difference between death-qualified and excludable venirepersons with respect to their endorsement of 6 out of 7 statutory mitigators. It would appear that the Gregg v. Georgia (1976) decision to declare the death penalty unconstitutional is frustrated by the Lockhart v. McCree (1986) affirmation of death qualification.
PMID : 11985297 [PubMed - Indexed for MEDLINE]
This information is obtained from the National Library of Medicine (NLM). Abstract text and other information may be subject to copyright. Type "NLM copyright" into Google for more information.
Full Author Information
| First Name | LastName | Initials |
| Brooke M | Butler | BM |
| Gary | Moran | G |
Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami 33199, USA.
3rd Party provider links
Click the links below to go to related 3rd party information:
MESH categories and related page links
This article was linked to the MESH categories shown on the left below. The links on the right are related Memletics pages.
Category links from this article:- Adult
- Attitude
- Capital Punishment - legislation & jurisprudence
- Female
- Florida
- Homicide - legislation & jurisprudence, psychology
- Humans
- Judgment
- Male
- Multivariate Analysis
| | Related Memletics topics: |
Links for this articleFor links to places where you can get the full text of this article see links. Note there may be a subscription or fee required for access to the full text. New! Using similar technology to this site, we have launched find-health-articles.com, targeting over 1 million health research article abstracts. Related ArticlesHere are some articles related to this one (by title keywords): Keywords in this article:affects, affirmation, aggravating, aggravators, appear, booklet, capital, case, circuit, circumstances, compared, completed, contained, death, decision, declare, demographic, difference, endorsements, excludables, fifty, florida, following, four, frustrated, georgia, gregg, guilt, hundred, impacts, included, indicated, investigate, item, judicial, jurors, k, legal, likely, likert, lockhart, luginbuhl, materials, mccree, measure, miami, middendorf, mitigating, mitigators, more, nonstatutory, out, participants, penalty, phases, point, previous, purpose, qualification, qualified, questions, receptiveness, required, research, respect, results, scale, scenario, significant, standard, stimulus, study, summary, two, unconstitutional, venirepersons, whether, witherspoon, witt
|
