INDEX

This article analyzes whether state-approved jury instructions adequately guide jury discretion in the penalty phase of first-degree murder trials. It examines Eighth Amendment jurisprudence regarding guided jury discretion, emphasizing the use of “empirical factors” to examine the quality of state-approved instructions. Psychological research and testimony on the topic of the comprehensibility of jury instructions are reviewed. Data from a recently completed simulation with 80 deliberating juries showed that current instructions do not adequately convey the concepts and processes essential to guiding penalty phase judgments. An additional simulation with 20 deliberating juries demonstrated that deliberation alone does not correct for jurors’ errors in comprehension. The article concludes with recommendations for policy and future research.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Fair Trial,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

The articles in this issue discuss many appellate court decisions that turned on due process problems in the guilt and penalty phases of capital murder trials and the troubling role of race in capital prosecutions. Governor Ryan of Illinois cited many of these issues when he declared a moratorium on the death penalty and appointed a blue-ribbon panel to study the prosecution of capital murder in 2000. Governor Ryan commuted the sentences of all Illinois death row inmates in January 2003, in part, because the legislature was unable to address these issues that again appeared in the panel’s report. These issues raise serious questions about the reliability of the capital murder system and recommend a continued public debate about its fairness.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Networks,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

This paper seeks first to show that persons who are convicted of crimes can be perceived as either remorseful or as lacking in remorse. This division establishes a moral hierarchy that has profound implications for the characterization and disposition of persons who are so designated. Second, using both Canadian and American cases, it looks at how inclusion in the category of the unremorseful affects the characterization and disposition of those who have been wrongfully convicted. Finally, it suggests that remorse is a major site of conflict between persons who are wrongfully convicted and officials within the criminal justice system, conflict that involves the use of institutional pressure to encourage the expression of remorse, on the one hand, and the mobilization of individual resources to resist those expressions.

• Document type Article
• Countries list Canada
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Networks,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

Widely believed to be the innocent victims of an unfair trial, two foreign nationals facing execution in the United States had captured the attention of theworld. Rallies in their support attracted huge crowds in London and Paris, in Buenos Aires, Johannesburg, Bombay and Tokyo. Petitions for mercy flooded the governor’s office, signed by half a million people worldwide. The Italian head of state, former Nobel prize winners, and the Vatican joined in the global appealfor clemency, all to no avail. The world watched as the final days ticked away, transfixed by the last-minute battle to obtain a new trial amid a mounting storm ofdomestic and international protest. Citing procedural default and deference to state law, the appellate courts refused to intervene.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Networks,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

Based on the review of capital cases from various jurisdictions involoving issues of competence to stand trial, this article examines the standards, literature, and varying practices associated with competence assessments and adjudications. The author, who is an experienced criminal defense lawyer with capital trial and postconviction litigation experiece, examines the implications of disparities in the approaches and definitions used in dealing with competence assessments and suggests solutions to improve the standards of practice related to these important assessments.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Networks,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

Since July 1978, when Maryland’s capital punishment statute took effect, the State has been plagued by charges that the imposition of the death penalty is influenced by the race of the defendant and the legal jurisdiction in which the homicide occurred. Most critics use the characteristics of condemned inmates on Maryland’s death row, which reveal possible racial motivations. However, the authors argue that simply relying on the characteristics of condemned inmates reveals little about the underlying mechanisms of the imposition of the death penalty. The recent history of capital punishment in Maryland is reviewed, followed by a brief description of the legal structure of capital punishment under Maryland law. In order to empirically measure whether the imposition of capital punishment in Maryland is discriminatory, the authors examined 1,311 death eligible cases in Maryland from July 1, 1978 to December 31, 1999. Death eligible cases were defined as those cases in which the State’s attorney filed a notice of intention to seek a death sentence, the facts established that first degree murder was committed, the defendant was the principle in the first degree murder, the murder included at least one statutory aggravating circumstance, and the defendant was eligible for capital punishment at the time of the offense. The statistical strategy focused on determining the influence of race of victim, race of defendant, and geography on the imposition of the death penalty. Findings suggest that race and geography indeed play an important role in the Maryland justice system. Race and geography exert their most influence at the death notification and death notice retraction stages of the process. Thus, it is prosecutorial discretion that is the most apparent in the possible discriminatory application of capital punishment in Maryland. The findings from this study are unsurprising and are in line with similar studies from other States. The author cautions that overt racism is not necessarily the reason beyond the disproportionate application of capital punishment.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Networks,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

Attitudes toward the death penalty are multifaceted and strongly held, but little research outside of the death-qualification literature has focused on the role that such attitudes and beliefs play in jurors’ capital sentencing verdicts. A single item is insufficient to properly measure attitudes toward the death penalty; therefore, a new 15-item, 5-factor scale was constructed and validated. Use of this scale in 11 studies of capital jury decision making found a large effect of general support of the death penalty on sentencing verdicts as well as independent aggravating effects for the belief that the death penalty is a deterrent and the belief that a sentence of life without parole nonetheless allows parole. These effects generally were not completely mediated by, nor did attitudes moderate the effects of, aggravating and mitigating factors.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Networks,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

In the latter quarter of the 20th century, the United States Supreme Court has generally refused to narrow the procedural and substantive conditions under which adults may be sentenced to death for capital murder. The current status of social science evidence is briefly reviewed to evaluate the Court’s treatment of 3 specific categories of evidence: The death-qualified jury, prejudicial capital sentencing, and juror comprehension of capital-sentencing instructions. The role of perceptions of public opinion in the perseverance of capital punishment statutes is considered. It appears that the Court, in general, does not place much weight on social science evidence. Suggestions are made for future areas of research and practice for social scientists interested in capital punishment.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Networks,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

Victim impact evidence is presented during sentencing hearings to convey the harm experienced by victims and victims’ relatives as a result of a crime. Its use in capital cases is highly controversial. Some argue that the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the admission of victim impact statements (VIS) during capital sentencing proceedings (Payne v. Tennessee, 1991) invites prejudice and judgments based on emotion rather than reason. Others reason that it provides an important voice for survivors and affords the jury an opportunity to learn about the victim. The authors outline the chief psychological issues that arise in the context of VIS, including their relevance to jurors’ judgments of blameworthiness, concerns that the social worth of the victim will influence jurors’ sentencing decisions, and issues related to the emotional appeal of VIS. Psycholegal research on the influence of VIS on mock jurors is reviewed, and implications of this work for capital sentencing policy and suggested directions for future research are discussed.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Fair Trial, Murder Victims' Families,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127
  

This article briefly explores the underpinnings of the contemporary capital punishment moratorium movement and examines executive and legislative responses to calls for a halt to executions, including suggestions for studying the death penalty process. Although most investigations focus on select issues like innocence, ineffective counsel, and race bias, this article suggests that a wide-ranging constellation of issues should be investigated in any legitimate attempt to evaluate the administration of the death penalty. The article canvasses this broader sweep of issues, discusses related research evidence, and then considers the policy implications of conducting such a thorough empirical assessment of the administration of capital punishment in this country.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 114
  
  Warning: Undefined variable $liste_themes in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 121
  
• Themes list Moratorium ,
  Warning: Undefined variable $lien_langue in /home/worldcoa/coalition2020/wp-content/themes/WCADP/template-parts/contents-document.php on line 127