Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

Because jurors are concerned about the defendant’s

dangerousness and likelihood to be violent, evidence

that the defendant has been or will be a well-behaved

and model prisoner can also reduce the likelihood of

the death verdict. Only one (as yet unpublished) study

has found this result, but this could be a very impor-

tant mitigating factor. Likewise, the lack of a prior

criminal record reduces jurors’ perceptions of danger-

ousness and, therefore, also decreases jurors’ likeli-

hood of sentencing the defendant to death.

Interviews with jurors who have given a verdict of

death penalty show that jurors will give the death penalty

less often if the defendant expresses remorse for his or

her crime. However, no experimental study has found an

effect of remorse in death penalty trials. A defendant’s

silence, or even a statement that he or she is not remorse-

ful, could have an aggravating effect, producing more

death penalty verdicts. A defendant’s remorse is often

presented along with a religious plea, or testimony that

the defendant has become more religious while in prison

and is asking for forgiveness. At least one study suggests

that a defendant’s conversion to religion can affect jurors

and sensitize them to other mitigating factors as well.

Little research has addressed the effect of a defen-

dant’s “good character,” such as serving the community,

going to church, or previous good acts. Jurors may have

difficulty considering this evidence if there are serious

aggravating factors. Research shows that, during their

deliberations, jurors focus much more on the crime than

on the defendant’s character. Jurors also tend to focus on

the circumstances that formed a defendant’s character

rather than examples of previous good acts.

In the case of Roper v. Simmons in 2005, the

Supreme Court banned the execution of defendants who

committed their crime before the age of 18. Research

conducted before that decision found that jurors did give

the death penalty less often to juvenile offenders.

Research also suggests that an 18- or 19-year-old defen-

dant will be sentenced to death less often, but the miti-

gating effect of being a youthful defendant declines

quickly beyond the age of 20.

Interviews with death penalty jurors have also

found that jurors give the death penalty less often

if there is any lingering or residual doubt about the

defendant’s guilt, though in most cases, there is no

such doubt. This type of evidence can be restricted in

death penalty sentencing hearings, but jurors may

carry over such doubt from the guilt phase of the trial.

Kevin M. O’Neil

See also Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances,

Evaluation of in Capital Cases; Death Penalty; Juries

and Judges’ Instructions; Jury Understanding of

Judges’ Instructions in Capital Cases; Juveniles

and the Death Penalty; Mental Illness and the Death

Penalty; Mental Retardation and the

Death Penalty

Further Readings

Durham, A. M., Elrod, H. P., & Kinkade, P. T. (1996). Public

support for the death penalty: Beyond Gallup. Justice

Quarterly, 13,705–736.

Garvey, S. P. (1998). Aggravation and mitigation in capital

cases: What do jurors think? Columbia Law Review,

98,1538–1575.

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).

Sundby, S. E. (2003). The capital jury and empathy: The

problem of worthy and unworthy victims. Cornell Law

Review, 88,343–381.

ALCOHOLINTOXICATION

See SUBSTANCEABUSE ANDINTIMATE

PARTNERVIOLENCE; SUBSTANCEUSE

DISORDERS

ALCOHOLINTOXICATION, IMPACT

ON EYEWITNESSMEMORY

Alcohol consumption has a significant effect on eye-

witness identification abilities, including the accuracy

of perpetrator descriptions and identification accuracy

in showups (an identification procedure where only

one individual is shown to the witness) and lineups

(an identification procedure where several individu-

als, usually six in the United States, are shown to the

eyewitness). Understanding the effects of alcohol

consumption on memory is critical for the police,

investigators, prosecutors, defense counsel, judges,

and jurors to be able to judge the veracity of state-

ments and evidence that are put forward in cases

where alcohol consumption was present.

The research to date that has examined the effects of

moderate levels of alcohol intoxication on eyewitness

Alcohol Intoxication, Impact on Eyewitness Memory——— 11

A-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 11