Sentencing Determinations in Death Penalty Cases

Cunningham, Abpp Mark D.; Goldstein, Abpp Alan M.

doi:10.1002/0471264385.wei1121

Cited by 22 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, in evaluating risk factors for self‐harm in prison psychiatric treatment, the importance of considering the context in which self‐harm occurs needs to be emphasized. Researchers describing risk factors for violence against others have increasingly emphasized the importance of understanding the context in which violence towards others occurs (38–40). Our experience, however, has been that the same suicide assessment instruments that are used in community treatment programs are also often used in prison treatment programs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk of Harm: Inmates Who Harm Themselves While in Prison Psychiatric Treatment

Young¹,

Justice²,

Erdberg³

2006

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, 242 randomly selected male offenders who were receiving psychiatric treatment in prison were administered psychological and neuropsychological evaluations and were followed during their treatment in a prison psychiatric hospital. Offenders who harmed themselves in treatment were compared to those who did not harm themselves. Eighteen percent of offenders harmed themselves, the severity of which required medical intervention. Young age, drug abuse, absence of Axis I mental disorder but presence of Axis II borderline personality disorder identified offenders who harmed themselves. Psychopathy checklist-revised (PCL-R) total rating > or = 30 and PCL-R Factor 2 (antisocial lifestyle) rating also identified offenders who harmed themselves. Additionally, offenders who harmed themselves also were 8.36 times more likely than their cohorts to harm treatment staff. Theoretical understanding of offenders who harm themselves, the importance of considering the environmental context in identifying risk factors for self-harm, and implications for treatment are suggested.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk of Harm: Inmates Who Harm Themselves While in Prison Psychiatric Treatment

Young¹,

Justice²,

Erdberg³

2006

Journal of Forensic Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite considerable evidence supporting the construct validity of the PCL‐R as one means of operationalizing psychopathic traits, its applied use in capital sentencing evaluations has been widely criticized (Bersoff, ; Cunningham & Goldstein, ; Cunningham & Reidy, , ; Edens et al, ; Edens et al, ; Edens, Colwell, Desforges, & Fernandez, ). These criticisms have focused primarily on two issues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Prevalence, Role and Impact of Evidence Regarding Antisocial Personality, Sociopathy and Psychopathy in Capital Cases: A Survey of Defense Team Members

Edens

Cox

2012

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although anecdotal case accounts suggest that evidence concerning Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD), sociopathy and psychopathy is frequently introduced by the prosecution in capital murder trials, to date there has been no systematic research to determine the actual prevalence, role, or perceived impact of such evidence in these cases. Survey data collected from attendees at a national capital mitigation conference (n=41) indicated that prosecution evidence concerning APD was quite prevalent, with "sociopath" and "psychopath" labels being introduced less frequently. Evidence concerning these disorders, which were assessed primarily via DSM criteria and self-report personality inventories, was most often introduced by the prosecution in the sentencing phase to address a defendant's ostensible risk of future dangerousness and/or to rebut mitigating evidence-although it was also introduced frequently in the guilt/innocence phase of these trials to rebut mental health evidence offered by the defense. Survey respondents believed that evidence concerning APD, sociopathy, and psychopathy had a considerable impact on trial outcomes. Also, although defense objections were common, such evidence was rarely ruled to be inadmissible in these cases.

show abstract

“…In Ford v. Wainwright (1986), the Court ruled that those diagnosed as mentally incompetent after their conviction are to be protected from execution. The Court did not specify the precise criteria to be used to determine competency to be executed (Cunningham and Goldstein, 2003). The Court did note that that most states have interpreted incompetency at this stage to mean that the offender has become severely mentally ill to the point that s/he does not understand the nature of the punishment or the reason for the imposition of the death sentence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Death penalty support for special offender populations of legally convicted murderers: juveniles, the mentally retarded, and the mentally incompetent

Boots

Heide

Cochran

2003

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The U.S. Supreme Court recently re-examined the constitutionality of the death penalty in the context of two of three special offender populations of murderers (juveniles, mentally retarded, and mentally incompetent). The Court reaffirmed the imposition of the death penalty for juveniles 16 and 17, while reversing itself on the mentally retarded. In reaching its decision, the Court relied on society's "evolving standards of decency." Using Likert-type items, this study is the first to have prospective jurors assess support for the death penalty for these specific offender groups. The public's support for the execution of each of the groups is then compared with existing case law. Descriptive statistics and regression analyses indicate that, as expected, the levels of support for the applicability of capital punishment to the various special offender populations are much lower than that for the general adult offender. Moreover, these findings are congruent with the holdings of the Court with one notable exception: a slight majority of respondents supported executing the mentally incompetent. Reasons for the public's apparent departure from the Supreme Court holding prohibiting the execution of mentally incompetent convicted murderers are discussed. The Court's continued role in protecting marginalized populations from "cruel and unusual punishment" is explored in the context of strong public sentiment demanding justice and finality despite changes in offenders' mental capacity.

show abstract

Sentencing Determinations in Death Penalty Cases

Cited by 22 publications

References 61 publications

Risk of Harm: Inmates Who Harm Themselves While in Prison Psychiatric Treatment

Risk of Harm: Inmates Who Harm Themselves While in Prison Psychiatric Treatment

Examining the Prevalence, Role and Impact of Evidence Regarding Antisocial Personality, Sociopathy and Psychopathy in Capital Cases: A Survey of Defense Team Members

Death penalty support for special offender populations of legally convicted murderers: juveniles, the mentally retarded, and the mentally incompetent

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About