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: 158332 Find in a Library
Title: Capital Jury Project: Rationale, Design, and Preview of Early Findings
Journal: Indiana Law Journal  Volume:70  Issue:4  Dated:(Fall 1995)  Pages:1043-1102
Author(s): W J Bowers
Date Published: 1995
Page Count: 60
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation
Washington, DC 20550
Grant Number: SES-9013252
Type: Research (Applied/Empirical)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Now underway in 14 States, the Capital Jury Project (CJP) is a multidisciplinary study of how capital jurors make life or death sentencing decisions.
Abstract: Drawing upon rather lengthy interviews with 80 to 120 capital jurors in each participating State, the CJP is examining the extent to which juror exercise of capital sentencing discretion is still infected with or now cured of arbitrariness which the U.S. Supreme Court condemned in Furman v. Georgia. The research is being conducted by a consortium of university-based investigators, chiefly criminologists, social psychologists, and law faculty members, using common data collection instruments and procedures. In addition where available, trial transcripts are being used in the analysis. Interviews with judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys are also being conducted in some cases. The discussion of the CJP focuses on arbitrariness versus guided discretion, legal criticism of and empirical challenges to capital sentencing reform, and tensions between legal assumptions about how jurors exercise sentencing discretion and empirical evidence on how jurors actually make their decisions. Early CJP findings are presented from States where data collection has been completed. Preliminary data indicate, for example, that many jurors make their punishment decisions prematurely, well before the sentencing phase of a trial; that many jurors misunderstand the judge's sentencing instructions in ways that favor imposition of the death penalty; and that many jurors are unwilling to accept primary responsibility for their punishment decisions. 252 footnotes and 12 tables
Main Term(s): Courts
Index Term(s): Capital punishment; Jury decisionmaking; Jury instructions; Jury research; Sentencing disparity; Sentencing factors; Sentencing reform; Statistics; US Supreme Court decisions; Verdicts
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=158332

*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.