|
Death Qualification
My major line of research
examines the effects of death qualification on
capital trials. During death qualification, venirepersons are questioned
about their beliefs regarding the death penalty. In order to be eligible for
capital jury service, a prospective juror must be able and willing to
consider both legal penalties (i.e., death or life in prison without the
possibility of parole) as appropriate forms of punishment. A person who
meets the aforementioned Witt (1985) standard is deemed "death-qualified"
and is eligible for capital jury service; a person who does not meet the
aforementioned Witt (1985) standard is deemed "excludable" and is barred
from capital jury service.
Death-qualification
theory.
My research has
suggested that death-qualification status is actually a constellation of
dispositional factors which may, in fact, be more typical of certain
demographic subgroups than others (Butler, 2008d). The
aforementioned dispositional factors tend to drive certain attitudinal
indices which then, in turn, tend to drive certain behaviors (Butler, 2008d).
Demographic Differences.
Death-qualified jurors are more
likely to be male, Caucasian, moderately well-educated, politically
conservative, Catholic or Protestant, and middle-class (Butler & Moran,
2002).
Dispositional Differences.
Death-qualified jurors are more likely
to have a high belief in a just world, espouse legal authoritarian beliefs,
exhibit an internal locus of control, and have a low need for cognition
(Butler & Moran, 2007a; 2007b).
Attitudinal Differences.
Death-qualified jurors are more
likely to be racist, sexist, and homophobic, weigh aggravating circumstances
(i.e., arguments for death) more heavily than mitigating circumstances
(i.e., arguments for life), evaluate ambiguous expert scientific testimony
more favorably, and be skeptical of defenses involving mental illness (including the insanity defense). Death-qualified jurors are also more susceptible to the pretrial publicity
that surrounds capital cases, more affected by the victim
impact statements that occur during the sentencing phase of capital trials, more supportive of
capital punishment as it relates to the elderly and the
physically disabled, and more likely to evaluate mitigating circumstances
more negatively when a combination of strong and weak mitigation is
presented than when only strong mitigation is presented (Butler, 2007a;
2007b; 2007c; 2008a; 2008b; 2008c; 2008d; 2008e; Butler & Moran, 2002; 2007b; 2008a; Butler & Wasserman,
2006). I just concluded a project in which I examined the role of death qualification in
venirepersons' susceptibility to eyewitness testimony and explored whether or not eyewitness expert
testimony moderated the effect that death-qualification status has on juror
decision-making (Butler & Moran, 2008b). Check back to see what the data
revealed!
Behavioral Differences.
Death-qualified jurors are more likely to find
capital defendants guilty and sentence them to death.
I have found this pro-conviction, pro-death bias in death-qualified jurors'
evaluations of both adult and juvenile
defendants (Butler, 2007b; 2008e).
Process Effects.
The mere process of death qualification profoundly affects
jurors in capital trials. For example, Haney (1984a; 1984b) found
that jurors exposed to death qualification were significantly more likely to
find the defendant guilty, think that other jurors believed the defendant to
be
guilty, sentence the defendant to death, and assume that the law
disapproves of opposition to the death penalty. Since
capital voir dire
(i.e., jury selection) is the only voir dire that requires the penalty to be
discussed before it is relevant, the focus of jurors’ attention is
drawn away from the presumption of innocence and onto post-conviction
events. The time and energy spent by the court presents an implication of
guilt and suggests to jurors that the penalty is relevant, if not inevitable. Death qualification also forces jurors
to imagine themselves in the penalty phase. Research has shown that simply
imagining that an event will happen makes it more likely that the event will
actually occur. During death
qualification, jurors are repeatedly questioned about their views on the
death penalty. Consequently, jurors can become
desensitized to the imposition of the death penalty due to repeated exposure
to this extremely emotional issue and jurors are forced to publicly
commit to a particular viewpoint, both of which increase the likelihood that
jurors will vote for a death sentence. In addition, jurors who do not endorse the death penalty
also encounter implied legal disapproval by being judged “unfit for
service.” All of the research concerning the process effects of death
qualification was conducted under the now-defunct Witherspoon
(1968)
standard. One day, I hope to replicate this earlier study under
the current Witt (1985) standard (Butler & Moran, 2008c).
Defendant Attractiveness
I am beginning research project that will explore the impact of defendant attractiveness
in capital cases. In the
past, good-looking defendants have (generally) been treated more leniently
by the legal system than not-so-good-looking defendants (i.e., a real-life
example of the "what is beautiful is good theory"). However, for a variety
of reasons, I tend to think that this "attractiveness-leniency bias" is no
longer applicable to defendants charged with heinous offenses (Butler,
2008h). Am I right?
Am I wrong?
Stay tuned for the results!
Defense-Attorney Concessions
Sometimes defense attorneys in
first-degree murder trials will argue that
their client should be found guilty of a lesser-included charge, rather than
argue that the defendant is completely devoid of responsibility. I recently
explored the impact of such defense-attorney concessions on juror decisions.
My research indicated that defense-attorney concessions actually increased
the likelihood of conviction of a more serious offense (Butler, 2008f). In
other words, defense-attorney concessions do not appear to be judicious
trial strategy.
Execution of the Elderly and the Physically Disabled
As the
constitutionality of capital punishment continues to be called into
question, more states are imposing moratoria on executions. The result? A
bottleneck on death rows across the nation. Most people don't know that
death-row inmates are growing old and, at times, executed when they have become
elderly and/or physically disabled. I recently conducted a
study in order to explore community members' attitudes toward this issue and
found that most people were not particularly supportive of executing elderly
and/or physically-disabled death-row inmates. In summary, it appears that
most people consider elderly and/or physically-disabled death-row inmates to
be "vulnerable populations," deserving of special protection under the law
(Butler, 2008e).
Insanity
At present, 37 states allow defendants to
plead not guilty by reason of insanity (i.e., NGRI). While the percentage of
defendants who plead NGRI is extremely small (and the rate of successful
NGRI pleas is even smaller), the controversy surrounding the insanity
defense is enormous. This debate is largely due to the myths about the legal
standards of insanity, mental illness, and the insanity defense that are
perpetrated by the popular media (e.g., CSI; Law and Order). A
few years ago, I set out to examine how jurors' knowledge of and attitudes
toward the aforementioned constructs
influenced their decision-making processes.
My
research found that jurors who exhibited high levels of support for the insanity defense
were more likely to have more knowledge about the legal standards of insanity,
more positive attitudes toward mental illness, and were less likely to endorse the myths associated
with the insanity defense. In addition, jurors' level of
support for the insanity defense, age, educational level, occupation, type
of prior jury service, and political views were related to their willingness
to find the defendant NGRI. Notably, three factors that have been found to impact juror
decision-making processes in insanity cases in previous research failed to
do so in the current study: participants’ experience with psychological
disorders; participants’ exposure to psychotropic medications; and
participants’ experience with psychologists or psychiatrists. The findings
both replicate and extend earlier findings by suggesting that attitudes
toward the insanity defense are more complex than previously imagined
(Butler, 2006a).
Capital Trial Judges' Evaluations of Aggravating and Mitigating
Circumstances
In capital cases, the
judge has the final say as to whether the defendant is sentenced to death or
LWOP. In doing so, s/he weighs gives great consideration to the jury's
sentence, but has the ultimate power to overturn a jury's decision (i.e.,
reduce a death sentence to LWOP and increase and LWOP sentence to death).
A great deal of research
has been devoted to exploring how jurors weigh aggravating and mitigating
circumstances, but very little research has been geared toward empirically
examining how judges weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances (Butler
& Moran, 2002; Butler & Moran, 2007a). One of my next projects will involve
surveying capital trial judges in the state of Florida with the same measure
I used in two prior studies involving venirepersons (Butler, 2008i). My goal
is to be able to draw comparisons between the way venirepersons and capital
trial judges way the same aggravating, statutory, and nonstatutory
mitigating circumstances.
Mitigation
Since mitigating
circumstances are not limited by statute, capital defense attorneys are encouraged
to present as much mitigation as possible in order to save their clients'
lives (Lockett v. Ohio, 1978). However, my most recent study
revealed that all mitigation is not created equally and that jurors tend to
average, as opposed to add, mitigation of varying strengths. The result
is that the presentation of "weak" mitigation (e.g., evidence of addiction) may actually
make a death sentence more likely. The findings
suggest that capital defense attorneys are in a tremendous bind: If they
don't present all of the mitigation available to them, they issue of
"ineffective assistance of counsel" may be raised on appeal. If they do
present all of the mitigation available to them, they may be hastening their
clients' death sentences (Butler & Moran, 2008a).
Plea Bargaining in Capital Cases
Sometimes defense attorneys in capital cases will plead guilty, but ask the
jury to sentence their client to life in prison without the possibility of
parole (i.e., LWOP), as opposed to the death penalty (Butler, 2008g). Do
such admissions enhance the credibility of the attorney and the defendant,
therefore increasing the probability of a life sentence? In contrast, do so such
admissions hurt the credibility of the attorney and the defendant, therefore
increasing the probability of a death sentence? My study found the latter to
be true: Conceding guilt actually makes jurors more likely to sentence a
defendant to death (Butler, 2008g). Although findings of the current research are
considered preliminary and additional research into this topic is certainly
warranted, defense attorneys should be cautious when considering pleading
guilty and, essentially, beginning their client's capital trial with the
penalty phase (Butler, 2008g).
Post-Sentence Civil
Commitment
Post-sentence civil commitment is a procedure that authorizes the state to
indefinitely confine convicted sex offenders if it is determined that they
are sexually violent predators. A “sexually violent predator” is “a person
who has committed a sexually violent offense and suffers from a mental
abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage
in acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility for
long-term control, care, and treatment.”
In
order to determine if a convicted sex offender meets the criteria of a
sexually violent predator, a multidisciplinary team is appointed to conduct
a clinical evaluation. If they find that the defendant meets the criteria
for a sexually violent predator, a recommendation for involuntary civil
commitment is filed. A trial (either by judge or 6-person jury) is held
within 30 days of the petition. If the judge or jury determines that the
individual is a sexually violent predator, s/he will be indefinitely
confined to a secure facility until it is determined that they are no longer
dangerous to society.
My
research has found that most jurors espouse negative attitudes toward sex
offenders and, consequently, are both more likely to favor post-sentence
civil commitment as the appropriate punishment for sexually violent
predators and be receptive to evidence favoring commitment. Although jurors
were less likely to recommend committing the defendant immediately after
reading arguments favoring release, this effect was both slight and
temporary. In fact, initial verdicts (rendered before any evidence is
presented) and final verdicts (rendered after all evidence is presented)
were virtually indistinguishable. This particular finding appears to have
disturbing legal implications: Jurors who hear post-sentence civil
commitment cases appear to be so biased against sex offenders that they have
reached a decision before they hear the facts of a particular case (Butler,
2006b).
|
