NSF PR 97-2 - January 14, 1997
This material is available primarily for archival purposes. Telephone
numbers or other contact information may be out of date; please see current
contact information at media
contacts.
Capital Punishment Decisions Hinge on Jurors Who May
Not Understand Their Task
People called upon to sit on juries for capital crimes
often do not understand the language of the law, the
factors they are supposed to weigh in considering
a sentence, or even that they have final responsibility
for imposing punishment. New research funded by the
National Science Foundation (NSF) seeks ways to improve
the judgment of jurors who literally make life and
death decisions.
Richard L. Wiener, a psychologist at Saint Louis University
who studies how juries make decisions, has received
a three-year research grant for almost $200,000 from
NSF to identify the most pervasive and problematic
errors jurors commit which may influence deliberations
and final sentencing in first-degree murder trials.
Earlier research shows that potential jurors do not
reliably comprehend instructions which direct them
to weigh "aggravating" and "mitigating" factors to
determine whether to sentence a defendant to life
in prison or to death. Wiener says many jurors are
not clear about the legal definition of these terms,
and are often confused about the difference between
"counting" and "weighing" these critical factors.
Many misunderstand what it means to find a defendant
worthy of the death penalty "beyond a reasonable doubt,"
he says.
Not only do many jurors not comprehend legal terms,
they may not understand legal procedures.
"Some jurors may base a decision to impose the death
penalty on the belief that the final responsibility
of imposing a sentence rests with the judge," says
Wiener; "however, punishment in first-degree murder
cases is the responsibility of the jury."
In the first part of his NSF-supported research, Wiener
will interview potential jurors to assess their understanding
of the legal process, such basic terms as "mitigating,"
and what the law in their states expects of juries
in capital cases. Wiener and his team of researchers
will develop modifications to common court procedures
to help jurors better understand their responsibilities
and make decisions that are more consistent with the
law.
Wiener intends next to test his innovations with potential
jurors. During jury simulations, he plans to show
volunteers videotapes of the guilt and penalty phases
of re-enacted murder trials and allow them to arrive
at their own decisions. His modifications include
presenting jurors a list of common conceptual errors
to avoid in court, and using a diagrammed flow chart
to trace the procedural path for jury decision-making
rather than relying on a traditional description in
legal language.
Evaluating the resulting decisions of mock juries
should "contribute to a better understanding of how
to improve the present process of guiding jurors in
America's courtrooms," says Harmon Hosch, who directs
NSF's Law and Social Science Research Program.
|