Jurors are also affected by victim characteristics and
victim impact statements. If the victim is a public figure
or a policeman, jurors are more likely to sentence the
defendant to death. The murder of such a person causes
more harm to the community and deserves a more severe
punishment. Furthermore, jurors are allowed to con-
sider whether the victim was particularly vulnerable—
for instance, because of young or old age or disability.
Some research supports an increase in death verdicts in
cases of child victims, but little research exists on other
aspects of victim vulnerability. Jurors can also consider
the effect that the murder has on the victim’s surviving
family, friends, and the community. Several studies
have found that jurors are more likely to give the death
penalty when there is a large amount of suffering by the
victim’s family and the community. Courts and
researchers debate whether these effects are the result
of jurors’ sensitivity to an increase in the amount of
harm caused or instead an emotional reaction to the
testimony.
Victim characteristics can be important even without
victim impact statements. Some legal scholars and
social scientists worry that jurors may be improperly
considering the “worth” of the victim, or distinguishing
between a good victim and a bad victim, which the law
says they are not supposed to do. However, interviews
with jurors suggest that jurors’ verdicts are different not
necessarily because of a distinction between a good
victim and a bad one but rather because of the similar-
ity between the victim and themselves. Jurors can iden-
tify or empathize more with a normal victim chosen
at random than a victim who is part of the crime or
involved in a risky situation. In fact, that the victim is
the defendant’s accomplice or otherwise part of the
crime is often a mitigating factor. Overall, victim char-
acteristics are weighed heavily a lot by jurors.
Many other aggravating factors exist in death penalty
cases, such as committing the murder for financial gain,
in the course of another felony, or after substantial plan-
ning. However, research has not yet addressed the effect
of these aggravating factors on jurors’ decisions.Mitigating Factors
Although jurors have trouble understanding the legal
definition of mitigating factors, there are some factors
that affect their decisions. The factors that have the
largest effect are, generally speaking, those that are out
of the defendant’s control, are more severe, and reduce
the defendant’s responsibility for the murder.Mental illness is the most powerful mitigating factor,
even if it is not enough to make the defendant legally
insane. Recognizing this large effect, the American Bar
Association has recently called for the exclusion of
severely mentally ill defendants from eligibility for the
death penalty. Jurors likewise believe that a mental dis-
order can make a defendant less responsible for his or
her crime. However, all mental disorders are not the
same. Severe and typical disorders, such as schizophre-
nia and delusional disorders, will reduce the likelihood
of a death sentence. Most studies also show that low IQ
and “borderline” mental retardation also reduce death
sentences, and defendants who are legally mentally
retarded are not eligible for the death penalty at all.
Disorders such as depression, antisocial personality dis-
order, or bipolar disorder have less effect on jurors, if
any. Not much research has addressed these types
of mental illness.
Researchers and courts recognize the fact that
some mental disorders can be aggravating factors. The
fact that a defendant has an antisocial personality dis-
order or a low IQ may cause jurors to think that that
the defendant is dangerous, so jurors may be more
likely to impose the death sentence. Specific symp-
toms that may influence jurors are the defendant’s
inability to control violent impulses or to learn from
mistakes. Not enough research currently exists to clar-
ify when these disorders will be treated as aggravating
and when they will be treated as mitigating.
Drug or alcohol addiction and intoxication are
forms of mental disorder because drug use impairs
the decision-making capacity of the defendant and
can induce other disorders. In many states, voluntary
intoxication cannot be used as a legal defense to a
crime but can still be a mitigating factor. Two studies
have shown that intoxication at the time of the crime
can reduce the likelihood of the death penalty.
Having been abused as a child or having had a dif-
ficult childhood and background is also commonly
presented as a mitigating factor, but again, this factor
could produce mixed reactions in jurors. Very severe
physical and verbal abuse reduces the likelihood of a
death sentence, but less severe abuse or a troubled
childhood may not affect verdicts. Some courts, legal
scholars, and social scientists assert that a troubled
childhood could also be seen as an aggravating factor
if the defendant’s background includes violent acts or
previous arrests. This again suggests that jurors are
more concerned about a defendant’s dangerousness
than about a defendant’s mitigating evidence.10 ———Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances in Capital Trials, Effects on JurorsA-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 10