Display options
Cite
Patry MW, Penrod SD. Death Penalty Decisions: Instruction Comprehension, Attitudes, and Decision Mediators. J Forensic Psychol Pract. 2013;13(3):204-244doi: 10.1080/15228932.2013.795816.
Patry, M. W., & Penrod, S. D. (2013). Death Penalty Decisions: Instruction Comprehension, Attitudes, and Decision Mediators. Journal of forensic psychology practice, 13(3), 204-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2013.795816
Patry, Marc W, and Penrod, Steven D. "Death Penalty Decisions: Instruction Comprehension, Attitudes, and Decision Mediators." Journal of forensic psychology practice vol. 13,3 (2013): 204-244. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2013.795816
Patry MW, Penrod SD. Death Penalty Decisions: Instruction Comprehension, Attitudes, and Decision Mediators. J Forensic Psychol Pract. 2013 Jan 01;13(3):204-244. doi: 10.1080/15228932.2013.795816. PMID: 24072981; PMCID: PMC3780391.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Forensic Psychol Pract. 2013 Jan 01;13(3):204-244. doi: 10.1080/15228932.2013.795816.

Death Penalty Decisions: Instruction Comprehension, Attitudes, and Decision Mediators.

Journal of forensic psychology practice

Marc W Patry, Steven D Penrod

Affiliations

  1. Saint Mary's University.

PMID: 24072981 PMCID: PMC3780391 DOI: 10.1080/15228932.2013.795816

Abstract

A primary goal of this research was to empirically evaluate a set of assumptions, advanced in the Supreme Court's ruling in Buchanan v. Angelone (1998), about jury comprehension of death penalty instructions. Further, this research examined the use of evidence in capital punishment decision making by exploring underlying mediating factors upon which death penalty decisions may be based. Manipulated variables included the type of instructions and several variations of evidence. Study 1 was a paper and pencil study of 245 undergraduate mock jurors. The experimental design was an incomplete 4×2×2×2×2 factorial model resulting in 56 possible conditions. Manipulations included four different types of instructions, presence of a list of case-specific mitigators to accompany the instructions, and three variations in the case facts: age of the defendant, bad prior record, and defendant history of emotional abuse. Study 2 was a fully-crossed 2×2×2×2×2 experiment with four deliberating mock juries per cell. Manipulations included jury instructions (original or revised), presence of a list of case-specific mitigators, defendant history of emotional abuse, bad prior record, and heinousness of the crime. The sample of 735 jury-eligible participants included 130 individuals who identified themselves as students. Participants watched one of 32 stimulus videotapes based on a replication of a capital sentencing hearing. The present findings support previous research showing low comprehension of capital penalty instructions. Further, we found that higher instruction comprehension was associated with higher likelihood of issuing life sentence decisions. The importance of instruction comprehension is emphasized in a social cognitive model of jury decision making at the sentencing phase of capital cases.

References

  1. Law Hum Behav. 1997 Oct;21(5):485-501 - PubMed
  2. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986 Dec;51(6):1173-82 - PubMed
  3. J Soc Psychol. 1985 Oct;125(5):637-51 - PubMed
  4. Law Hum Behav. 2009 Dec;33(6):481-96 - PubMed
  5. Law Hum Behav. 2011 Oct;35(5):339-50 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support