Life or death decision making: Qualitative analysis of death penalty jurors

Abstract

The relationship between capital jury instructions and imposition of the death penalty in the United States is analyzed through 36 semi-structured interviews collected as part of the archives of the national Capital Jury Project (CJP) at the School of Criminal Justice at the State University of New York in Albany. Former capital jurors expressed confusion, frustration, or ambivalence in areas of instruction clarity and procedural integrity. Specifically, jurors reported significant degrees of confusion as to the clarity of the instructions and the verbiage used to define their role and the exact parameters guiding both their sentencing decision and findings of fact. Moreover, a discrepancy was found in the degree to which statutory aggravation influenced decision making as opposed to mitigating testimony, calling into question both the constitutionality of the death penalty and its compliance with legal precedent. The article concludes with a discussion of the relevance these findings have for forensic social workers working in capital cases including implications for policy and practice.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.