My thesis critically examines the role that the U.S. Supreme Court's "death is different" jurisprudence has played in the development of life without parole (LWOP) sentencing.

abstract: For the death penalty to be justified, it must be reserved for the worst of the worst. In his 2011 study of Connecticut's death penalty system, however, John Donohue found that arbitrariness and discrimination are defining features. Donohue's finding that non-white defendants whose victims were white are six times more likely to receive the death penalty indicates that race is more a predictor of a death sentence than the egregiousness of the crime. An analysis of capital sentencing outcomes in Maricopa County, Arizona reveals that the race of the victim is not related to the likelihood of receiving a death sentence, but the race of the defendant is. Use of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), logistic regression, and an egregiousness calculation are employed to analyze capital sentencing trial outcomes in Maricopa County from 2009 through 2011. This triangulated approach is applied to test three theoretically-derived models - the Donohue model, the Illinois Commission model, and the Functional model. The findings indicate that during the given time period in Maricopa County, the race of the defendant was statistically significant in cases with low to mid-levels of egregiousness, but was no longer significant in the most egregious cases. The results also reveal that the most egregious cases, typically indicated by the presence of a prior conviction and multiple victims, are nearly five times more likely to result in an outcome of death. While the results of this study are suggestive only, because of the small sample size and the relatively brief duration of time studied, the conclusions presented aim to provoke further inquiry into states' death penalty systems to address Donohue's allegation of unconstitutional application nationwide. Through a drastic reduction of death-eligibility factors, implementation of a transparent plea bargaining protocol in which the presence of certain aggravating factors preempts the possibility of a plea, and equal funding for prosecutor and defense offices, the death penalty in this country could begin to target the worst of the worst. / Dissertation/Thesis / M.S. Justice Studies 2012

Previous research has demonstrated that judicial instructions on the law are not well understood by jurors tasked with applying the law to the facts of a case. The past research has also shown that jurors are often confused by the instructions used in the sentencing phase of a capital trial. Social scientists have used two different methods to improve juror understanding of legal instructions, psycholinguistic rewrites and bias-reduction techniques. Psycholinguistic rewrites of legal instructions have been shown consistently to improve juror comprehension of general legal instructions and instructions used in the sentencing phase of a capital trial, however, there has been a call in the literature to not only improve the clarity of judicial instructions but to address comprehension biases that interfere with jurors? ability to understand the instructions. Because a bias-reduction approach has received limited empirical testing and has never been tested on capital-sentencing instructions, this research sought to test the effectiveness of a bias-reduction approach with those instructions. Participants were randomly assigned to hear either Florida's pattern instructions used in the penalty phase of a capital trial or the same instructions with additional statements that mentioned and refuted biases thought to be associated with established areas of miscomprehension. After participants heard the judicial instructions, their understanding of the law on capital punishment decision-making was assessed. Additionally, the participants were asked to render a verdict in a hypothetical case. The results revealed that comprehension was higher for participants exposed to the bias-refutation statements than for participants who were exposed to only the pattern instructions. Among all participants, greater understanding of capital sentencing instructions was associated with an increased likelihood that mock jurors recommended a life sentence, but this observed association was not statistically significant when examining capital-juror eligible participants. The results of this study suggest that efforts should be undertaken to improve specific areas of Florida's capital sentencing instructions.

The current dissertation had three primary objectives, categorized into two MTurk studies with capital juror-eligible community members: (a) cross-validate the psychometric properties of the JQVV, (b): explore the role of legal attitudes via the JQVV in mock capital sentencing decisions, and (c): examine the JQVV's ability to detect juror social desirability in capital voir dire. Impressively, Study 1 (N = 552) and Study 2 (N = 313) provided strong and consistent evidence for the JQVV's reliability and construct validity. In the mock juror paradigm, punitive legal attitudes on the JQVV (i.e., Crime-Neg, Convict, and Death-Pos), did not directly affect sentencing decisions, however they indirectly influenced the perception of nearly all other legally relevant variables (e.g., evidence type). For example, participants with more punitive criminal justice attitudes evaluated aggravating evidence more favorably which, in turn, increased death sentence verdicts. Study 1 also underscored the concerningly low levels of comprehension jurors have regarding judicial instructions and other relevant legal knowledge (e.g., the definition of aggravating). In Study 2, the support-life and support-death groups evidenced divergent patterns of social desirability, although support-death participants did not dramatically alter their scores between the genuine and social desirability condition. Additionally, the JQVV Pros-Cyn and Justice-Pos scales were moderately effective at identifying social desirability, marking the first ever questionnaire to examine juror response styles. Implications for research, professional practice in capital jury selection, and legal policy are discussed.

Despite positive steps toward the suppression of racial discrimination in the United States capital punishment process, the enduring effects of a cultural legacy of Black oppression (e.g., slavery; segregation; lynching) and historic and systemic racial discrimination in the criminal justice system have persisted to the present day. The purpose of the current study is to explore whether this enduring cultural legacy still exists by examining whether juries in rape-involved capital murder trials in North Carolina are more likely to recommend a sentence of death when the defendant is a Black male and the victim is a White female (compared to White male victims and White female victims). Within an analytic induction framework, the current study utilizes qualitative hypothesis testing to critically test each of the rape-involved homicide cases in an effort to elucidate the legal (e.g., circumstances of the case) and extra-legal (e.g., race of the defendant and victim, respectively; multiple dimensions of the ECL) factors that influence death sentence recommendations in North Carolina during this time period. The qualitative analysis involves the comprehensive reading and documentation of case narratives and newspaper articles in which I re-sort (i.e., reclassify) the hypothesis-supporting, hypothesis-non-supporting, and hypothesis-rejecting cases while considering the salient circumstances of the trial (e.g., aggravating circumstances; perceived brutality of the crimes committed) and the influence of multiple dimensions of the ECL (e.g., the liberation hypothesis; credibility of the White female victim). Findings from the qualitative analysis failed to show support for the ECL hypothesis (24.1% of trials showed support for the hypothesis, 19% of trials rejected the hypothesis, 57% of trials did not show support for or reject the hypothesis). While the findings did not show support for the ECL hypothesis in any context, the rich information uncovered in the extensive review of LexisNexis case narratives and newspaper articles that had a direct bearing on the qualitative findings and interpretations that could not be identified in a quantitative approach to the data (e.g., a juror’s expression of racial attitudes that was the single greatest piece of evidence showing support for the ECL; detailed descriptions of especially brutal trial circumstances that may have influenced jury sentencing decisions; the perceived credibility or chastity of the victim; the inclusion of relevant trials and exclusion of trials not appropriate for analysis) demonstrates the value of a qualitative approach to the study of racial discrimination in jury sentencing decisions.