Adverse Childhood Experiences in Capital Sentencing: A Focal Concerns Approach to Understanding Capital Juror Leniency

Vaughan, Tyler J.; Holleran, Lisa Bell

doi:10.1080/07418825.2022.2038242

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also possible that jurors believe that the impacts of these adverse experiences may have led to more permanent changes in the offender’s functioning and abilities rending these individuals “irrevocably damaged” (Weder & Kaufman, 2011, p. 1087). Association with future dangerousness or an inability to be rehabilitated can transform compelling mitigation into support for a death sentence (Logan, 1989; McPherson, 1995; Shapiro, 2008; Vaughan & Bell Holleran, 2023). Our study shows that for youthful offenders, coming from a broken home is operating as a converted mitigator.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Capital Punishment Trials of Youthful Offenders: The Impact of ACEs Mitigation

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the 2005 Roper v. Simmons decision, the Supreme Court determined that capital punishment, the death penalty, was not appropriate for offenders under the age of 18. The Court accepted the argument that juveniles are less blameworthy than adult offenders due to differences in their cognitive abilities and the influence of factors outside of their control, such as household dysfunction or the existence of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). Recent empirical literature examining both brain development and the impact of ACEs on both brain maturity and offending behaviors demonstrates that brain maturation and psychosocial maturation continue into the mid-twenties. As a result, youthful offenders, those 18 to 24 of age, may possess many of the neuropsychological deficiencies attributed to juveniles and yet be sentenced to death. This research examines if juries of capital punishment trials recognize the impact of age and ACEs when determining their sentencing decision.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Capital Punishment Trials of Youthful Offenders: The Impact of ACEs Mitigation

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The existing literature regarding perceptions of jurors on the history of child abuse when presented as a mitigating factor in a death penalty trial is inconsistent. Past research has primarily utilized college students to collect data on juror perceptions and all the literature focuses on multiple aggravating factors, not exclusively child abuse (Ball, 2005; Barnett et al., 2007; Najdowski et al., 2009; Platania & Kostantopoulou, 2014; Stevenson et al., 2010; Vaughan & Bell Holleran, 2023).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moderate mitigation was found for physical abuse, and minimal mitigation was found for neglect (Bell Holleran et al., 2016). The key finding in a recent study was that the presentation of history of child abuse evidence presented by a defense expert did not lead mock capital jurors to draw the inference that defendants had a greater probability of future dangerousness (Vaughan & Bell Holleran, 2023). The research concluded that mitigating evidence largely contributes to leniency in sentencing.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life or death: A qualitative examination of mitigating and aggravating evidence presented in capital trials

Holleran

2023

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The US Supreme Court has required that death penalty procedures narrow the class of persons eligible for a death sentence. Through the selection requirement, juries must use mitigating and aggravating evidence jointly to determine if a defendant is one of the worst of the worst, resulting in a sentence of life without parole or death. This study analyzed capital trial transcripts from the punishment phase to assess the type and amount of mitigating and aggravating evidence presented to jurors in cases resulting in life without parole and death. The main assumption of the research was that cases resulting in life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) would reveal patterns in the types of evidence presented and differing patterns in cases where the jury handed down a sentence of death. The study qualitatively examined the trial transcripts from the punishment phase of 18 capital murders (nine resulting in LWOP and nine in death). The extra‐legal factors from each LWOP case were matched to a death case to eliminate sentencing discrepancies based on jurisdiction, race of defendant or victim, aggravator, age etc. The results found no consistent patterns of evidence presented in cases resulting life without parole and some relevant patterns in sentences resulting in death.

show abstract