mock jurors with lower comprehension levels find
mitigating evidence to be more persuasive in the case of
a White defendant than in the case of a Black defen-
dant. Mock jurors with high comprehension levels do
not exhibit the same discriminatory behaviors.
Finally, above and beyond the impact of low com-
prehension on juror verdict choices, it is clear that
jurors—citizens who are being called away from their
everyday lives and asked to make a very difficult
decision—experience frustration with the instructions
themselves, and many feel confused and upset during
the decision-making process.Improving Comprehension
Despite the limitations of the capital-sentencing instruc-
tions being used today, several studies have demon-
strated that it is possible to improve comprehension
levels using a variety of techniques. For example, sev-
eral studies using psycholinguistic improvements
designed to simplify and clarify the language in the
penalty phase instructions have shown improved com-
prehension levels in jurors. Similarly, researchers have
experimented with penalty phase instructions that
incorporate case-specific details, instructions that
include definitions of the terms aggravatingand miti-
gating, enhancements designed to improve both the
declarative and the procedural knowledge of jurors, and
other innovations, all of which have been successful in
improving jurors’ comprehension of penalty phase
instructions to some degree.
Although there is a significant body of social sci-
entific evidence documenting the limitations of juror
comprehension in capital cases, and providing tech-
niques and suggestions for improvement, juror com-
prehension of capital penalty phase instructions
continues to represent an area of tension between
psychology and the law. The Supreme Court has
consistently upheld the death sentences of defen-
dants challenging the instructions used in their trials,
reasoning that there is a presumption that the jury
both uses and understands the instructions provided
in any case.Amy E. SmithSee alsoAggravating and Mitigating Circumstances,
Evaluation of in Capital Cases; Aggravating and
Mitigating Circumstances in Capital Trials, Effects on
Jurors; Death Penalty; Death Qualification of Juries;
Juries and Judges’ InstructionsFurther Readings
Diamond, S. (1993). Instructing on death: Psychologists,
juries, and judges. American Psychologist, 48(4),
423–434.
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
Haney, C., Sontag, L., & Costanzo, S. (1994). Deciding to
take a life: Capital juries, sentencing instructions, and the
jurisprudence of death. Journal of Social Issues,
50 (2), 149–176.
Luginbuhl, J. (1992). Comprehension of judges’ instructions
in the penalty phase of a capital trial: Focus on mitigating
circumstances. Law and Human Behavior,
16 (2), 203–218.
Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2000). Discrimination and
instructional comprehension: Guided discretion, racial
bias, and the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior,
24 (3), 337–358.
Ogloff, J., & Chopra, S. (2004). Stuck in the dark ages:
Supreme Court decision making and legal developments.
Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 10,379–416.
Wiener, R. L., Rogers, M., Winter, R., Hurt, L., Hackney,
A., Kadela, K., et al. (2004). Guided jury discretion in
capital murder cases: The role of declarative and
procedural knowledge. Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law, 10,516–576.JUVENILEBOOTCAMPS
Correctional programs designed to be similar to mili-
tary basic training are called “boot camps.” Although
there are some programs for youths at risk of delin-
quency, these vary widely, and most juvenile boot
camps are designed for children adjudicated as delin-
quent. This entry describes the program and opera-
tions of typical boot camps for adjudicated youths,
reviews the development of correctional boot camps,
and examines how they have changed over time. It
then discusses controversies concerning the risks and
benefits of boot camps, including the issue of net
widening, and reviews research on their effectiveness.
Most boot camps for adjudicated juveniles require
that they serve 3 to 6 months in a boot-camp-type facil-
ity. The programs resemble those of military boot
camps; for example, staff are usually called drill instruc-
tors, and staff and juveniles wear military-type uni-
forms. Youths must say “Yes, sir” or “Yes, ma’am” in
response to staff, and they cannot speak unless spoken428 ———Juvenile Boot CampsJ-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 428