public. Overall, males are significantly more support-
ive than females, Whites are more supportive than
Blacks, and Republicans are more supportive than
Democrats. While responses to a broad question about
support for or opposition to the death penalty may give
a rough indication of American attitudes at a particular
time, such general responses can be misleading. More
detailed survey research reveals that support often rests
on mistaken assumptions about issues such as cost,
fairness of application, or deterrence. In addition, sup-
port falls when alternative punishments are mentioned.
The public is about evenly divided if respondents are
asked to choose between the option of “the death
penalty” or “life in prison without the possibility of
parole” for “persons convicted of murder.” When the
punishment of “life without parole plus restitution” is
offered as an alternative to the death penalty, a major-
ity of Americans endorse it.Wrongful Conviction and Execution
Decisions about who is guilty of capital murder and
who should be executed are entrusted to a fallible legal
system. The possibility of wrongful conviction and
execution of an innocent defendant has always been
part of the public debate over capital punishment, but
the emergence of DNA as a means of criminal identi-
fication has made this argument much more promi-
nent. During the past 30 years, more than 120 people
have been released from death row because of new evi-
dence or reanalysis of existing evidence. It is important
to note that the number of wrongful convictions
exposed by DNA analysis is only a fraction of the total.
Such DNA-based exonerations are only possible if
biological evidence (e.g., blood, semen, skin cells) has
been collected at the crime scene and preserved for
later testing. It is impossible to know how many pris-
oners currently on death row are actually innocent. For
most death row inmates, there is clear evidence of
guilt. And many who claim to be innocent could be
lying. But it is likely that there are also cases where
wrongfully convicted death row inmates are unable to
prove their innocence because of lack of evidence or
lack of resources.
More than 1,000 condemned prisoners have been
executed since the reinstatement of the death penalty
in 1976. It is impossible to know exactly how many of
these prisoners were actually innocent. Once a pris-
oner has been killed, courts rarely entertain claims of
innocence, and lawyers, investigators, and journaliststurn their attention to cases where possibly innocent
prisoners can still be saved. Despite the difficulty of
conclusively proving wrongful executions, there are a
handful of cases where there is persuasive evidence
that the wrong man was executed (e.g., Ruben Cantu,
Gary Graham, Larry Griffin, James O’Dell, Leo
Jones). The reality of wrongful conviction and wrong-
ful execution raises the issue whether retention of the
death penalty is so valuable that it justifies occasion-
ally sending an innocent person to death row and per-
haps to the execution chamber.
If the decision to retain or abandon capital punish-
ment was based solely on research findings, it would
have been abolished long ago. However, like many
important social policies, the decision is driven by emo-
tional and political as well as empirical considerations.Mark CostanzoSee alsoAggravating and Mitigating Circumstances,
Evaluation of in Capital Cases; Aggravating and
Mitigating Circumstances in Capital Trials, Effects on
Jurors; American Bar Association Resolution on Mental
Disability and the Death Penalty; Competency for
Execution; Death Qualification of Juries; Juveniles and
the Death Penalty; Mental Illness and the Death Penalty;
Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty; Moral
Disengagement and Execution; Racial Bias and the Death
PenaltyFurther Readings
Atkins v. Virginia,536 U.S. 304 (2002).
Bedau, H. A. (2004). Killing as punishment. Boston:
Northeastern University Press.
Costanzo, M. (1987). Just revenge: Costs and consequences
of the death penalty.New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Dow, D. R. (2005). Executed on a technicality.Boston:
Beacon Press.
Furman v. Georgia,408 U.S. 238 (1972).
Gregg v. Georgia,428 U.S. 153 (1976).
Myers, B., & Greene, E. (2004). The prejudicial nature of
victim impact statements: Implications for capital
sentencing policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,
10,492–515.
O’Neil, K. M., Patry, M. W., & Penrod, S. D. (2004).
Exploring the effects of attitudes toward the death penalty
on capital sentencing verdicts. Psychology, Public Policy,
and Law, 10,443–470.
Osofsky, M. J., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2005). The
role of moral disengagement in the execution process.
Law and Human Behavior, 29,371–393.Death Penalty——— 189D-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 189