| NCJ Number: |
75227  |
| |
|
| Title: |
Case Histories - Quantitative Methods for Judging the Comparative Excessiveness of Death Sentences (From Use/Nonuse/Misuse of Applied Social Research in the Courts, 1980, P 82-94, Michael J Saks and Charles H Baron, ed. - See NCJ-75219) |
| |
|
| Author(s): |
D C Baldus |
| |
|
| Date Published: |
1980 |
| |
|
| Page Count: |
13 |
| |
|
| Sponsoring Agency: |
Abt Books
Cambridge, MA 02138 |
| |
|
| Sale Source: |
Abt Books
Marketing Director
55 Wheeler Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States of America |
| |
|
| Type: |
Report (Study/Research) |
| |
|
| Language: |
English |
| |
|
| Country: |
United States of America |
| |
|
| Annotation: |
The tools of applied social science can be used to study procedural reforms, such as reducing excessiveness in capital sentencing. |
| |
|
| Abstract: |
Currently, the courts, primarily appellate courts, treat excessiveness in determining the death sentence in murder cases in an intuitive and unsystematic manner. Excessiveness as used here means the probability that a defendant would not receive a death sentence in a similar situation elsewhere. The legal support for such a claim may be the eighth amendment, and to date the courts have not specified the level of probability at which a defendant's death penalty becomes excessive. Applied social science was used to analyze excessiveness in capital sentences from a study of 239 murder convictions given by California juries from 1958 to 1966. Three quantitative measures of excessiveness were developed: the salient features measure and two main determinants measures. A discussion of six principles in the construction of the quantitative measures is given. It is recommended that quantitative arguments in an excessiveness review proceeding establish a threshold and perform a burden-shifting function. If the numbers in the aggregate suggest that the defendants receive a death sentence less than a certain percentage of the time (i.e., 50 percent), then the burden of proof on the excessiveness issue should shift to the State. Tabular data are included. |
| |
|
| Index Term(s): |
Capital punishment; Court reform; Research and development; Research methods; Sentencing disparity; Sentencing reform |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=75227 |
| |
|
