The Penry v. Lynaugh decision and subsequent legislation represented a response to unfair capital sentencing procedures with respect to two special issues, allowing defendants to offer all evidence with mitigating potential to the jury for consideration in the sentencing decision and considering the issue of future dangerousness in jury decision-making on whether to impose the death penalty or a life sentence. The impact of the legislative reform was studied using a quasi-experimental longitudinal design format, based on 192 Texas cases resulting in jury convictions for capital murder that proceeded to penalty trials between September 1, 1989, and August 31, 1993. Data were primarily obtained from official records of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and included intake summaries, police reports, criminal records, court documents, and other institutional records. Results indicated the legislative reform had little influence on the sentencing of capital murder defendants. The level of future dangerousness posed by the defendant remained the primary determinant of sentencing decisions made by juries after the legislative reform. Three policy implications of the findings are suggested: (1) jurors should be given accurate information on a defendant's likelihood of re-offending; (2) life without parole may be offered as a sentencing option to provide jurors with a reasonable alternative to the death penalty; and (3) an aggravating or mitigating balance scheme may be appropriate to eliminate an overly narrow focus on incarceration. 22 references, 3 notes, 2 tables, and 2 figures