Death Qualification as Systematic Exclusion of Jurors With Certain Religious and Other Characteristics

Abstract

The death‐qualification process has been criticized because it tends to eliminate certain groups of individuals at a higher rate than others. This study examined whether the process systematically excludes jurors based on religious characteristics, justice philosophy, cognitive processing, and demographics. Results indicated that death qualification can be predicted by religious affiliation, devotionalism, fundamentalism, and Biblical interpretism; but not evangelism. Death qualification is predicted by the belief that murderers deserved to die, but not by beliefs that criminals deserve mercy, forgiveness, or payback. Cognitive processing had no impact on death qualification. Finally, gender and race predicted death qualification, while age and prior jury duty did not. These results are discussed in terms of implications for perceived legitimacy of the system.

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

“…According to the 2010–2016 General Social Survey data, the south central and south Atlantic regions have the highest proportion of fundamentalists, particularly the eastern south central region (50% identify as fundamentalists). Moreover, religious fundamentalists are more likely to be death qualified (Summers, Hayward, & Miller, ), and thus, a petit capital jury might be disproportionately composed of religious fundamentalists compared to the jury pool in many jurisdictions. Therefore, attorneys in these jurisdictions might be especially mindful of this research when trying death penalty cases before a jury.…”

Relationships between religious characteristics and response to legal action against parents who choose faith healing practices for their children.

“…Lindsey et al (2008) proposed ways in which lawyers can use religion to select a jury. Although some jurisdictions forbid such practices, it is still allowed in most of the United States (Miller & Bornstein, 2006; Miller & Hayward, 2008; Summers, Hayward, & Miller, 2010).…”

The continuing unfairness of death qualification: Changing death penalty attitudes and capital jury selection.

“…In addition, research conducted in several local jurisdictions in Florida found that, among other things, death-qualified jurors were more likely to endorse racist, sexist, and homophobic attitudes (Butler, 2007a), were more susceptible to potentially prejudicial pretrial publicity (Butler, 2007b), and more responsive to victim impact testimony (Butler, 2008). Researchers elsewhere also found that death qualification not only eliminated a disproportionate number of women and nonwhites but also members of certain religious groups, especially Catholics (Summers et al, 2010). Although many of these studies were conducted with local samples from individual jurisdictions that were not necessarily representative of jurors more broadly, the results underscored the fact that there was, if anything, more reason to focus on the biasing effects of death qualification than in the past.…”