Death penalty decision‐making: Fundamentalist beliefs and the evaluation of aggravating and mitigating circumstances

Abstract

Purpose Jurors’ religious characteristics are related to death penalty attitudes and verdicts. Jurors’ religious characteristics might also relate to endorsements of aggravating circumstances (aggravators) and mitigating circumstances (mitigators)—factors that make a defendant more or less deserving of the death penalty, respectively. The purpose of this research was to assess the extent to which religious fundamentalism was related to endorsement and weighing of aggravators and mitigators and subsequent death penalty decisions while controlling for relevant religious and demographic characteristics. Methods Two studies were conducted. Study 1 included a regression analysis in which participants filled out religious and demographic measures via an online survey. In Study 2, participants acted as mock jurors in a death penalty trial in which the defendant was already found guilty. Mock jurors read the case facts and attorney arguments and then weighed aggravators and mitigators before recommending a sentence for the defendant. Results In Study 1, fundamentalism negatively predicted mitigator endorsement, intrinsic religiosity negatively predicted aggravator endorsement, and orthodoxy positively predicted aggravator endorsement. In Study 2, fundamentalism was related to death penalty sentences, and this was mediated by people's weighing of aggravators and mitigators. Specifically, fundamentalism was related to a lower likelihood of choosing a life sentence because fundamentalism was negatively related to weighing mitigators over aggravators. Conclusions Results support and explain prior research linking fundamentalism with punitiveness in death penalty cases. Such findings support the “eye for an eye” punishment philosophy associated with fundamentalist beliefs. Theoretical and legal implications are discussed.

Predicting support for community corrections: Crime type and severity, and offender, observer, and victim characteristics

“…As for observer characteristics, our hypothesis was only partially supported: The only variable that contributed to the prediction of CC support was observer religiosity. As previous studies suggested (e.g., Miller, 2016, 2017;Yelderman et al, 2019), our finding indicates that secular respondents were less punitive and chose CC as appropriate punishment more frequently than religious respondents. The contribution of religiosity is even more distinctive in light of the non-significant association between CC support and observer gender, age, education, ethnicity, economic status, and political affiliation.…”

Religion and Religiosity: A Path to War or Peace

“…Although fundamentalists appear resistant to evidence that would deem murder less worthy of the death penalty, they seem to evaluate aggravating circumstances similarly to non-fundamentalists. Th is is also consistent with the threshold approach to understanding the relationship between fundamentalism and death sentencing" (Yelderman, West, Miller, 2019).…”

Attribution of Blame Toward Offenders: Victim and Offender Ethnicity, and Observer Ethnic and Religious Background

“…Religion is another central factor associated with attitudes toward offenders (Bohm, 1987; Falco & Turner, 2014). Citizens who rate themselves as more religious tend to attribute less responsibility to husbands who beat their wives (e.g., Haj-Yahia & Zaatut, 2018), are more supportive of the juvenile death penalty (Skovron, Scott, & Cullen, 1989), and are generally more punitive (Yelderman & Miller, 2017; Yelderman, West, & Miller, 2018). The few studies that examined religion mostly focused on Christian religious affiliation (Rade, Holland, Gregory, & Desmarais, 2017; Wozniak & Lewis, 2010) and present mixed results.…”