When mitigation evidence makes a difference: effects of psychological mitigating evidence on sentencing decisions in capital trials.
Little empirical research has addressed the effects of psychological or psychosocial evidence on sentencing decisions. The present study found that death-qualified mock jurors were more likely to sentence a defendant to death without mitigating evidence than in a case with mitigating evidence present. Mock jurors were less likely to assign a death sentence in cases that contained one of the following types of mitigating evidence: The defendant was (i) diagnosed with schizophrenia, not medicated, and suffered from severe delusions and hallucinations, (ii) drug addicted and high at the time of the murder, (iii) diagnosed as borderline mentally retarded during childhood, or (iv) severely physically and verbally abused by his parents during childhood.
Barnett
Michelle E
ME
Department of Psychology, University of Alabama, PO Box 870356, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA. bernettme@hotmail.com
Brodsky
Stanley L
SL
Davis
Cali Manning
CM
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D002203:Capital Punishment / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D002648:Child; D002649:Child Abuse / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D003657:Decision Making; D003702:Delusions / Q000175:diagnosis; D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D005260:Female; D006212:Hallucinations / Q000175:diagnosis; D006801:Humans; D007298:Insanity Defense; D008607:Intellectual Disability / Q000175:diagnosis*; D033222:Judicial Role; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D012559:Schizophrenia / Q000175:diagnosis*; D013334:Students / Q000523:psychology; D019966:Substance-Related Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis*