The focal concerns of jurors evaluating mitigation
Evidence from federal capital jury forms
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4920151 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Mary R Rose (0000-0003-2281-0701, The University of Texas at Austin, corresponding author), Meredith Martin Rountree |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 56 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 213-236 |
| Publication date | 2022-06-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Law & Society Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0023-9216 • E-ISSN: 1540-5893 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1111/lasr.12602 |
| OpenAlex | W4280579563 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 33 |
Mitigating evidence in capital trials provides reasons for a life, rather than death, sentence. Research suggests that mitigation challenges jurors. We contribute to this area by analyzing federal verdict forms in capital cases, which allow jurors to write in their own mitigating factors, providing a direct, rare window onto their mitigation considerations. We use 205 forms from 171 juries to examine the frequency and content of these "write-ins," using a sentencing theory typically applied to judges, Focal Concerns Theory. We find that four of every 10 juries prompted to offer their own mitigation do so, producing 149 unique write-ins, the majority of which introduces mitigation topics that differ from those listed on the verdict form. Surprisingly, jurors are less likely to offer write-in mitigators in cases involving White defendants than others, even after controlling for support for other mitigating factors and for aggravating factors, which also predict write-ins. Jurors' write-ins reflect a traditional sentencing concern for blameworthiness, and consistent with Focal Concerns Theory, attention to the practical consequences of punishment. Jurors also offered concerns we term "procedural fairness." Results indicate that juries' views are patterned in ways that are similar, but not identical, to judges' sentencing concerns
Capital (architecture · Capital punishment · Jury · Law and economics · Political science · Punishment (psychology · Sentence · Sentencing guidelines · Sociology · Verdict · Computer Science · Criminal Law and Evidence · History · Jury Decision Making Processes · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Psychology · Social Psychology
White female victims and death penalty disparity research
Focally Concerned About Focal Concerns
Why People Obey the Law
Death by Design
Looking Deathworthy
Recent Developments and New Directions in Sentencing Research
Instructing on death
Deterrence and the Death Penalty
Just Punishments
A Critical Examination of the “White Victim Effect” and Death Penalty Decision-Making from a Propensity Score Matching Approach
The Interaction of Race, Gender, and Age in Criminal Sentencing
Understanding the Influence of Victim Gender in Death Penalty Cases
Reassessing Race Disparities in Maryland Capital Cases
Gender and Imprisonment Decisions
Ethnicity and Sentencing Outcomes in U.S. Federal Courts
Jurors’ discussions of a defendant’s history of child abuse and alcohol abuse in capital sentencing deliberations
Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment
Life or death
The Ironies of Helping
Structure and Practice of Familial-Based Justice in a Criminal Court
| Unique citing works | 5 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2,5 |
| Citation span | 2024 - 2027 (4) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 4 |