Little empirical research has addressed the effects of psychological or psychosocial evidence on sentencing decisions. The present study found that death-qualified mock jurors were more likely to sentence a defendant to death without mitigating evidence than in a case with mitigating evidence present. Mock jurors were less likely to assign a death sentence in cases that contained one of the following types of mitigating evidence: The defendant was (i) diagnosed with schizophrenia, not medicated, and suffered from severe delusions and hallucinations, (ii) drug addicted and high at the time of the murder, (iii) diagnosed as borderline mentally retarded during childhood, or (iv) severely physically and verbally abused by his parents during childhood.

No abstract

Children tend to choose an entity they cannot already label, rather than one they can, as the likely referent of a novel noun. The effect of input that contradicts this strategy on the interpretation of other novel nouns was investigated. In pre- and posttests, 4-year-olds were asked to judge whether novel nouns referred to "name-similar" familiar objects or novel objects (e.g., whether japple referred to an apple or a binder clip). During an intervening treatment phase, they were asked to pick the referents of novel nouns from pairs of familiar objects (Experiments 1 and 3) or were taught subordinate names for familiar objects (Experiment 2). Most resisted the lure of phonological similarity in the pretest but increased selection of name-similar familiar objects over novel ones in the posttest. In Experiment 3, which involved monosyllables that differed in initial phoneme from the familiar words, treatment produced this effect only when accompanied by a rhyme-sensitization procedure. Experiment 2 included two other age groups: 2-year-olds, who were less resistant to phonological similarity in the pretest and responded to the treatment like the 4-year-olds; and adults, who nearly always selected the novel objects in the pretest and posttest. For children, the impact of treatment was positively associated with ability to detect phonological similarity and negatively associated with vocabulary size.

This study examined the scope and components of mitigation assessments in a first effort to develop some guidelines for conducting mitigation evaluations. Using the Mitigation Evaluations Survey (MES) we developed for this research, we surveyed 266 psychologists about the characteristics and content of mitigation evaluations. A high percentage of participants endorsed each of the 14 content areas presented in the MES as essential or recommended for inclusion in mitigation evaluations. However, when the participants were given a hypothetical open-ended referral question regarding a mitigation evaluation, fewer participants included all 14 content areas in their responses. This discrepancy as well as information regarding the qualifications and expertise of the participants is discussed. Mitigation Evaluations 3 Mitigation Evaluations: A Survey of Current PracticesMitigation evaluations occupy a unique position within psycholegal topics for several reasons. First, mitigation occurs solely in the sentencing phase of capital murder trials. Capital trials are divided into two separate parts: the guilt-determining phase, and if necessary, the sentencing phase. It is this sentencing phase that sets capital trials apart from other types of criminal and civil litigation, and within this sentencing phase mitigation testimony may become crucial. During the sentencing phase, the jury hears both aggravating and mitigating evidence regarding the case and the defendant, weighs that evidence, and recommends a sentence (Acker & Lanier, 1994).A second unique element of mitigation work is that it involves a process that carries life or death implications. Jurors who hear the mitigating and aggravating arguments in the sentencing phase of capital trials must rely on that information to arrive at the life-or-death decision they are charged with making. Other psycholegal work psychologists perform (e.g., competency to stand trial, mental state, criminal responsibility) is not directly linked to potential death outcome options.An additional unique element of mitigation work is the role mental health professionals (MHPs) assume. Decisions regarding the investigation of the case and defendant for potential mitigating circumstances, the selection of mitigation evidence to be presented, and the specific content and depth to which the mitigating factors and circumstances are introduced are

No abstract