skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 157885 Find in a Library
Title: Instructing on Death: Psychologists, Juries, and Judges
Journal: American Psychologist  Volume:48  Issue:4  Dated:(April 1993)  Pages:423- 434
Author(s): S S Diamond
Date Published: 1993
Page Count: 12
Type: Survey
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This analysis of jury instructions in cases involving capital punishment concludes that some States provide seriously inadequate guidance, that jury instructions sometimes contribute to confusion, and that psychological research can have an important role in reducing or eliminating the arbitrariness that permeates decisionmaking in capital cases.
Abstract: The legal system of the United States depends on judicial instructions to structure jury death penalty decisions and thus avoid unconstitutional arbitrariness. However, some death penalty instructions are inadequate and ignore aspects that lead jurors to misconstrue instructions. Empirical research has begun to document sources of misunderstanding and ways to improve communication. Psychological research can assist in reducing arbitrariness in death penalty decisions, but even optimal instructions may not produce constitutionally sufficient consistency. To be constitutional, capital punishment must be imposed according to a consistent set of standards. Simultaneously, juries must be free to consider in mitigation any relevant case of offender characteristics. However, it is not clear that this constitutional conflict between standards and discretion can be resolved. Footnotes and 62 references
Main Term(s): Court procedures
Index Term(s): Capital punishment; Criminology; Jury decisionmaking; Jury instructions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=157885

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.