Because few states prohibit using religious factors
to exclude potential jurors, most lawyers are able to
do so. Psychologists can provide information about
how religious variables may affect jurors’ decisions,
although the research has been sparse and sometimes
contradictory. Conflicting findings likely represent the
strong relative influence of individual case facts, the
type of trial (e.g., capital or noncapital trial), and dif-
ferent measurements of religious variables.
Studies have investigated the relationships between
religion and guilt verdicts, sentencing verdicts, and pun-
ishment in nontrial settings. Early research shows that
jurors who believe in a divine plan and life after death
tend to be more likely to find a defendant guilty. Other
research has found that individuals who believe in a
punitive God or could be categorized as religiously
moderate or fundamental/conservative were more puni-
tive. Religious affiliation may influence attitudes toward
punishment, as a few studies have found that Protestants
are more supportive of the death penalty than Catholics;
other studies have found Catholics to be more punitive
than Jews. Several studies have found a positive rela-
tionship between punitiveness and a belief in a literal
interpretation of the Bible. Religious fundamentalism
has sometimes been linked to punitiveness and support
for the death penalty. Evangelist individuals (i.e., those
who actively encourage others to accept Jesus) in one
study were less likely to support the death penalty,
though other studies have failed to replicate the finding.
Devotionalism (i.e., the amount of time one spends in
religious activities) has also produced mixed findings.
A more current study found that individuals who
support the death penalty were more likely to be
Protestant, have fundamentalist beliefs, believe in a lit-
eral interpretation of the Bible, believe that God sup-
ports the death penalty, believe that God requires the
death penalty for murderers, and believe that their own
religious groups support the death penalty. All these
relationships except literal interpretism also existed
among jurors who were death qualified. A mock jury
simulation revealed that various religious factors influ-
enced sentencing verdicts. Specifically, a death penalty
verdict was related to high scores on the fundamental-
ism scale, belief in a literal biblical interpretation,
belief that God requires the death penalty for murder-
ers, and a belief that one’s religious group supports the
death penalty. Although research has sometimes pro-
duced conflicting results, many individuals do rely on
their religious beliefs when making decisions, includ-
ing death-penalty-sentencing decisions.Use of Religion by
Lawyers During TrialBoth prosecutors and defense attorneys have presented
religious appeals and testimony about a defendant’s
religiosity to influence capital jurors’ sentencing deci-
sions. Appeals typically are presented in the closing
arguments of the sentencing phase; testimony and evi-
dence can come from a variety of sources, including
pastors and relatives. Some courts have objected to
these uses of religion (especially appeals), determining
that religion improperly influences jurors’ decisions.
Prosecutors have used several types of appeals dur-
ing trial. First, attorneys have quoted biblical passages
that support retribution, such as the “an eye for an eye
and a tooth for a tooth” passage and the “Whoso shed-
deth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed”
passage. Prosecutors in child murder cases have
quoted the passage, “It were better for him that a mill-
stone were hanged about his neck and he were cast
into the sea, than that he should offend one of these
little ones.” Such appeals communicate that a person
who murders should also be put to death.
Second, prosecutors have told jurors that God has
given them the authority to make the life-and-death
decisions. Other attorneys have claimed that the state
legislature, the prosecutor, or the court is acting under
God’s authority. Such an instruction implies that God
supports, or at least does not object to, the jury giving
the defendant the death penalty.
Third, prosecutors have made comparisons
between the defendant and biblical characters such as
Judas Iscariot and the devil. Attorneys also tell bibli-
cal stories of Cain and Abel, David and Goliath, and
the Apostle Peter. These stories provide recognizable
metaphors for jurors to use in their decisions.
Defense attorneys have also used a variety of reli-
gious appeals to persuade jurors. For example, they
have quoted biblical passages such as “Do not take
revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath,
for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’
says the Lord” or argued generally that life-and-death
decisions belong to God, not to man.
Defense attorneys have countered the prosecution’s
use of the “eye for an eye” argument by presenting
quotes from Jesus that advocate “turning the other
cheek.” Such appeals promote forgiveness rather than
retribution. They have also argued for the importance
of forgiveness by telling biblical stories such as the one
in the book of John about the woman who is caught682 ———Religion and the Death PenaltyR-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 682