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 defendant's 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.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.