Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Luginbuhl (1992)
Comprehension of judges' instructions in the penalty phase of a capital trialLaw and Human Behavior, 16
C. Haney, Aída Hurtado, Luis Vega (1994)
“Modern” death qualificationLaw and Human Behavior, 18
R. Dillehay, M. Sandys (1996)
Life underWainwright v. Witt: Juror dispositions and death qualificationLaw and Human Behavior, 20
(1974)
Heuristics and Biases
C. Haney (1984)
On the selection of capital juries: The biasing effects of death qualificationLaw and Human Behavior, 8
Professor Emeritus of Psychology Florida International University Miami, FL Revised 09
J. Kidd (1983)
Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and BiassesJournal of the Operational Research Society, 34
Mona Lynch, C. Haney (2000)
Discrimination and Instructional Comprehension: Guided Discretion, Racial Bias, and the Death PenaltyLaw and Human Behavior, 24
C. Cowan, W. Thompson, P. Ellsworth (1984)
The effects of death qualification on jurors' predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberationLaw and Human Behavior, 8
R. Wiener, Christine Pritchard, M. Weston (1995)
Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder casesJournal of Applied Psychology, 80
Michael Neises, R. Dillehay (1987)
Death qualification and conviction proneness: witt and witherspoon comparedBehavioral Sciences & The Law, 5
W. Thompson, C. Cowan, P. Ellsworth, Joan Harringtonw (1984)
The Translation of Attitudes into Verdicts
C. Haney (1984)
On the selection of capital juriesLaw and Human Behavior, 8
J. Luginbuhl (1992)
Comprehension of judges' instructions in the penalty phase of a capital trial: Focus on mitigating circumstancesLaw and Human Behavior, 16
(1997)
State of New Hampshire v John Brooks, Rockingham Superior Court (June 2 nd ) 2007 State of Florida v. Richard Henderson, Twelfth Judicial Circuit of Florida (June 22 nd ) 2007 State of Florida v
C. Haney, A. Hurtado, L. Vega (1994)
“Modern” death qualification: New data on its biasing effectsLaw and Human Behavior, 18
D. Bersoff, D. Ogden (1987)
In the Supreme Court of the United States Lockhart v. McCree: Amicus curiae brief for the American Psychological Association.American Psychologist, 42
J. Luginbuhl, K. Middendorf (1988)
Death penalty beliefs and jurors' responses to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trialsLaw and Human Behavior, 12
L. Festinger (1957)
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
C. Haney (1984)
Examining death qualificationLaw and Human Behavior, 8
(1984)
Due process vs. crime control: Death qualification and jury attitudes
R. Robinson (1993)
What does “unwilling” to impose the death penalty mean anyway? another look at excludable jurorsLaw and Human Behavior, 17
S. Diamond (1993)
Instructing on death: Psychologists, juries, and judges.American Psychologist, 48
C. Haney (1984)
Further Analysis of the Process Effect
D. N. Bersoff (1987)
In the Supreme Court of the United States: Lockhart v. McCreeAmerican Psychologist, 42
(1968)
Some data on juror attitudes toward capital punishment (Monograph). Center for Studies in Criminal Justice
Former Assistant Public Defender of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit (Retired) Tebrugge Legal Services Sarasota
W. C. Thompson, C. L. Cowan, P. C. Ellsworth, J. C. Harrington (1984)
Death penalty attitudes and conviction proneness: The translation of attitudes into verdictsLaw and Human Behavior, 8
C. Haney (1984)
Examining death qualification: Further analysis of the process effectLaw and Human Behavior, 8
G. Moran, J. Comfort (1986)
Neither "tentative" nor "fragmentary": Verdict preference of impaneled felony jurors as a function of attitude toward capital punishment.Journal of Applied Psychology, 71
Canada The Honorable
Previous research has found that death qualification impacts jurors' receptiveness to aggravating and mitigating circumstances (e.g., J. Luginbuhl & K. Middendorf, 1988). However, the purpose of this study was to investigate whether death qualification affects jurors' endorsements of aggravating and mitigating circumstances when Witt, rather than Witherspoon, is the legal standard for death qualification. Four hundred and fifty venirepersons from the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami, Florida completed a booklet of stimulus materials that contained the following: two death qualification questions; a case scenario that included a summary of the guilt and penalty phases of a capital case; a 26-item measure that required participants to endorse aggravators, nonstatutory mitigators, and statutory mitigators on a 6-point Likert scale; and standard demographic questions. Results indicated that death-qualified venirepersons, when compared to excludables, were more likely to endorse aggravating circumstances. Excludable participants, when compared to death-qualified venirepersons, were more likely to endorse nonstatutory mitigators. There was no significant difference between death-qualified and excludable venirepersons with respect to their endorsement of 6 out of 7 statutory mitigators. It would appear that the Gregg v. Georgia (1976) decision to declare the death penalty unconstitutional is frustrated by the Lockhart v. McCree (1986) affirmation of death qualification.
Law and Human Behavior – Springer Journals
Published: Oct 4, 2004
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.