NCJ Number
194758
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 26 Issue: 2 Dated: April 2002 Pages: 175-184
Date Published
2002
Length
10 pages
Annotation
This study looked at whether death qualification made a difference if the more current Witt, rather than Witherspoon, was used as the legal standard. Death qualification is part of voir dire and death penalty jurors undergo extensive questioning about their beliefs regarding capital punishment. Using the Witt standard, this research investigates the difference between excludable and death-qualified jurors' opinions of nonstatutory mitigating (arguments for life) and aggravating (arguments for death) circumstances.
Abstract
Death qualification is part of voir dire and death penalty jurors undergo extensive questioning about their beliefs regarding capital punishment. Using the Witt standard, this research investigates the difference between excludable and death-qualified jurors' opinions of nonstatutory mitigating (arguments for life) and aggravating (arguments for death) circumstances. This study used 450 venirepersons called for jury duty in Florida. Thirty-two percent were White; 51 percent were Hispanic and 10 percent were Black. Fifty-nine percent were women and 41 percent were men. The median income was $60,000 and the median age was 41. Twenty-seven percent had served on a jury before and the majority of venirepersons (82 percent) had taken college classes, had a degree, or an advanced degree. In the 1968 Witherspoon standard, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a jury person could decide the guilt or penalty or both without regard to the evidence. Whereas, under the more current Witt standard, a juror can be dismissed if they feel so strongly about the death penalty that this belief would prevent or substantially impair their performance. The results of this study suggest a relationship between death-qualified participants and their likelihood to endorse aggravating circumstances. Similarly, excludable jury persons endorsed nonstatutory mitigating circumstances. A surprising finding among the study participants involved little weight given to statutory mitigating circumstances. One exception was mental or emotional disturbance, which may be explained because this statutory mitigator implies psychopathology. In Lockhart v. McCree, 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court held that death qualification was necessary and constitutional. Hence, this law will continue and additional research is needed to study factors that may impact death penalty jurors' decision-making processes. Tables, references