Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

punish them for those actions. However, in a capital

context, it provides a justification for imposing a pun-

ishment other than death. The underlying psychologi-

cal rationale for this has several separate components.

First, many mitigating factors that are introduced into

a capital-sentencing trial serve to reduce defendants’

level of moral culpability for the crime(s) they have

been found responsible for committing. That is, expo-

sure to traumatic, deprived, or otherwise criminogenic

background factors may help account for a defen-

dant’s criminality, making him or her less personally

blameworthy than otherwise. Similarly, a defendant

whose behavior is significantly affected by mental

health problems, cognitive or neurological impair-

ments, or other maladies may be seen as less culpable

than others not similarly afflicted. In a capital trial,

depending on the nature and amount of those crimino-

genic forces or impairments, the defendant’s moral

culpability may be reduced, so that the jury decides

that a death sentence is not warranted.

Humanizing testimony and evidence that illustrates

the defendant’s positive qualities and prior good acts

are mitigating in a different way. This kind of capital

mitigation speaks to the complexity of human nature,

the fact that a life can be judged on the basis of more

than the worst thing(s) someone has done, and encour-

ages jurors to reflect comprehensively on the value of

the life they are being called on to take. Mitigation

about future adjustment, potential contributions to

prison life, and the defendant’s connections and

importance to family and loved ones speaks to the

psychological and social cost of a death verdict and

encourages jurors to weigh these factors in the sen-

tencing equation they employ.

Craig Haney

See also Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances,

Evaluation of in Capital Cases; Aggravating and

Mitigating Circumstances in Capital Trials, Effects on

Jurors; Death Penalty

Further Readings

American Bar Association. (2003). Guidelines for the

appointment and performance of defense counsel in death

penalty cases. Hofstra Law Review, 31,913–1090.

American Law Institute. (1962). Model penal code.

Philadelphia, PA: Author.

Fabian, J. (2003). Death penalty mitigation and the role of

the forensic psychologist. Law & Psychology Review,

27,73–120.

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).

Goodpaster, G. (1983). The trial for life: Effective assistance

of counsel in death penalty cases. New York University

Law Review, 58,299–362.

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).

Haney, C. (1995). The social context of capital murder:

Social histories and the logic of capital mitigation. Santa

Clara Law Review, 35,547–609.

Haney, C. (2005). Death by design: Capital punishment as a

social psychological system.New York: Oxford University

Press.

Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978).

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

Note, Eighth Amendment—Death penalty: Weighing of

aggravating and mitigating factors. (2006). Harvard Law

Review, 120,144–154.

Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003).

Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000).

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

See DEATHPENALTY

CHECKLIST FORCOMPETENCY

FOR EXECUTIONEVALUATIONS

To date, very few instruments have been developed

for the purpose of assisting evaluators in the assessment

of competency for execution. One of the first—the

Checklist for Competency for Execution Evaluations—

is described in this entry. The checklist consists of four

sections that describe important and relevant psycholegal

criteria to be considered in this type of forensic assess-

ment. The purpose of the checklist is to guide evaluators

through the interview portion of a competency for execu-

tion evaluation. At present, there is no available research

that examines the reliability or validity of this checklist.

Evaluations of competency for execution are prob-

ably the least common type of criminal forensic eval-

uation conducted, simply because of the relatively

small number of individuals who have been sentenced

to death (as compared with the population of criminal

defendants); however, the repercussions of this type of

evaluation are literally a matter of life and death for

the inmate whose competence has been questioned.

Utmost care needs to be taken in conducting this type

of evaluation.

Checklist for Competency for Execution Evaluations——— 63

C-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 63