When mitigation evidence makes a difference: effects of psychological mitigating evidence on sentencing decisions in capital trials

Behavioral Sciences & the Law
Michelle E BarnettCali Manning Davis

Abstract

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.

References

Oct 1, 1974·Journal of Medical Education·B A Lockett

❮ Previous
Next ❯

Citations

Aug 15, 2006·The Psychiatric Clinics of North America·Charles L Scott
Jan 4, 2012·Behavioral Sciences & the Law·Edith Greene, Brian S Cahill
Jan 18, 2017·Behavioral Sciences & the Law·Lisa L Bell HolleranDonna M Vandiver
Jul 5, 2008·Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin·Clayton R Critcher, David A Pizarro
Aug 2, 2020·Behavioral Sciences & the Law·Lauren N MileyBeth J Bejerregaard
Apr 16, 2020·Behavioral Sciences & the Law·Lisa Bell Holleran, Tyler J Vaughan
Aug 26, 2019·Cognitive Science·John Turri

❮ Previous
Next ❯

Related Concepts

Related Feeds

Addiction

This feed focuses mechanisms underlying addiction and addictive behaviour including heroin and opium dependence, alcohol intoxication, gambling, and tobacco addiction.