Marla Sandys

The Misperception of Public Opinion Toward Capital Punishment: Examining the Spuriousness Explanation of Death Penalty Support

Appellate courts in the United States, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have looked to public opinion and legislative trends to interpret the meaning of “evolving standards of decency” in determining whether capital punishment violates the Eighth Amendments prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Bowerss spuriousness explanation of public support for capital punishment suggests that lawmakers and appellate judges have misinterpreted public sentiment. Specifically, although the public voices general support for the death penalty, that support vanishes when citizens are given the option of life in prison without possibility of parole coupled with a requirement of work and restitution. This research tests and finds support for Bowerss explanation with data from a sample of Indiana citizens. In addition, the study extends the model by presenting data from Indiana legislators showing that indeed lawmakers do misread the opinions of their constituents on this important issue.

Attitudinal change among students in a capital punishment class: It may be possible

Students who participated in a class on capital punishment recorded their attitudes toward the topic on a weekly basis and completed a one year follow-up. The results demonstrate that by the end of the semester 65% of the students indicated opposition to capital punishment. Moreover, one year after the class 73% of the students maintained some degree of opposition to capital punishment. The difficulties associated with assessing attitudinal change as a result of participating in a class and reasons for the discrepancy between the findings of this study and previous research are discussed.

Aggravation and Mitigation: Findings and Implications

Sentencing decisions in capital cases are to be guided by a consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. This article presents a review of the literature on what mock jurors and actual capital jurors find aggravating and mitigating. Although there is relatively little empirical research available that addresses those issues directly, what does exist is relatively consistent, especially as it pertains to aggravation. Jurors are most persuaded for death by evidence and even mere perceptions of a defendants future dangerousness particularly when couched in terms of psychopathy. Likewise, defendants who are perceived as suffering from or experiencing traumatic life events that are out of their control are more likely to receive a sentence of life. The article concludes with a review of the research on how jurors respond to evidence presented in different modes that could help explain receptivity to aggravation and mitigation.

I’m Still Left Here With the Pain Exploring the Health Consequences of Homicide on Families and Friends

Limited research has focused on the aftermath of the homicide, namely, the families and friends of homicide victims left in the wake of the tragedy. The present study is a multisite study involving focus groups of families and friends of homicide victims and assessing participants’ resulting biopsychosocial consequences, their experiences with service providers, and whether or how their needs were met. This study is important to better understand their needs and to create a holistic systematic response to those most affected by homicide. The findings present recommendations regarding what approaches, resources, and services would be helpful for people who have had a loved one die by homicide, which may prove beneficial for academics, policymakers, practitioners, and medical responders.

A journey into the unknown: Pretrial publicity and capital cases

This article examines issues related to pretrial publicitys role in the free press‐fair trial debate. First, the article provides a comprehensive review of existing research examining the effects of pretrial publicity on case outcomes. Second, it examines the presentation of prejudicial publicity items in a sample of newspaper stories on capital cases, identifying the types of factual and emotional publicity presented and suggesting areas that need to be more closely scrutinized in future research. The article concludes that cases that ultimately result in sentences of death receive both more and different types of pretrial publicity than cases that result in lesser sentences. The current state of empirical pretrial publicity knowledge, and the presentation of death cases, are discussed as they relate to the balancing of First and Sixth amendment rights.

Capital jurors, mental illness, and the unreliability principle: Can capital jurors comprehend and account for evidence of mental illness?

Recent U.S. Supreme Court opinions have given rise to the question of whether persons suffering from a severe mental illness should be categorically exempt from the death penalty. This article presents a brief overview of relevant U.S. Supreme Court cases and the empirical evidence relevant to this question. We then present our findings on how actual capital jurors respond to and discuss engaging with evidence of mental illness, as drawn from in-depth interviews collected as part of the Capital Jury Project. Existing research reveals that in the controlled situation of an experiment, evidence of mental illness is associated with votes for life rather than death. Similarly, actual capital jurors in our study reported anticipating that evidence of mental illness would make them less likely to vote for death. However, those jurors who dealt with mental illness in their case appeared to be less sensitive: they describe such evidence as having been overshadowed by the brutality of the crime; as indicative of the defendants future dangerousness; as being confusing, especially as presented by experts; and as a manipulative attempt on the part of the defendant to trick the jurors. The findings suggest that capital jurors cannot reliably comprehend and account for evidence of mental illness and thus offer a compelling reason for the Court to exempt those suffering from a mental illness from the death penalty.