Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T17:37:39.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gazing into the Crystal Ball: Can Jurors Accurately Predict Dangerousness in Capital Cases?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

James W. Marquart ,
Sheldon Ekland-Olson  and
Jonathan R. Sorensen
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Texas post-Furman death penalty statute restricts capital punishment to a limited category of murders. If the defendant is found guilty of one of these crimes, the jury must address two and sometimes three questions in the punishment phase of the trial. Affirmative answers to the questions by all jurors result in an automatic death sentence. A “no” answer to any question results in an automatic life sentence. One of the three questions is whether the defendant presents a continuing violent threat to society. From 1974 to 1988, niney-two capital murderers had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment. These commutations allow a “natural experiment” to assess the predictions made by jurors that these individuals would present a future violent threat to society. Patterns of institutional and post-release behavior of this group were compared to similar patterns for defendants convicted of capital murder who were not predicted to be dangerous and who received life imprisonment over the same fifteen-year period. We found that although most capital offenders were model inmates, two commuted capital prisoners committed second murders, one while in prison and the other while in the community. We conclude with a discussion of the validity of current death statutes that require jurors to predict future dangerousness.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , 1989 , pp. 449 - 468
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 The Law and Society Association

Footnotes

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1988 annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology. We are grateful to S. O. Woods of the Texas Department of Corrections for allowing access to the files. We wish to thank Chloe Tischler and Bruce Thomas for their assistance in the data collection. We also appreciate the comments and suggestions of Hugo Adam Bedau, Shari Diamond, Jerry Dowling, Michael Radelet, and two anonymous reviewers on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

References

APPELBAUM, Paul S. (1984) “Hypothetical, Psychiatric Testimony, and the Death Sentence,” 12 Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law 169.Google Scholar
BLACK, Charles L. Jr. (1976) “Due Process for Death: Jurek v. Texas and Companion Cases,” 26 Catholic University Law Review 1.Google Scholar
CRUMP, David (1977) “Capital Murder: The Issues in Texas,” 14 Houston Law Review 531.Google Scholar
DAVIS, Peggy C. (1976) “Texas Capital Sentencing Procedures: The Role of the Jury and the Restraining Hand of the Expert,” 69 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 300.Google Scholar
DIX, George E. (1981) “Expert Prediction Testimony in Capital Sentencing: Evidentiary and Constitutional Considerations,” 19 American Criminal Law Review 1.Google Scholar
EKLAND-OLSON, Sheldon (1988) “Structured Discretion, Racial Bias and the Death Penalty: The First Decade After Furman in Texas,” 69 Social Science Quarterly 853.Google Scholar
EWING, Charles P. (1983) ‘“Dr. Death’ and the Case for an Ethical Ban on Psychiatric and Psychological Predictions of Dangerousness in Capital Sentencing Proceedings,” 8 American Journal of Law and Medicine 407.Google Scholar
FAUST, David, and Jay, ZISKIN (1988) “The Expert Witness in Psychology and Psychiatry,” 241 Science 31.Google Scholar
FLOUD, Jean, and Warren, YOUNG (1982) Dangerousness and Criminal Justice. Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar
GOODMAN, Daniel S. (1987) “Demographic Evidence in Capital Sentencing,” 39 Stanford Law Review 499.Google Scholar
GREEN, William (1984) “Capital Punishment, Psychiatric Experts, and Predictions of Dangerousness,” 13 Capital University Law Review 533.Google Scholar
KUHN, Michael (1974) “House Bill 200: The Legislative Attempt to Reinstate Capital Punishment in Texas,” 11 Houston Law Review 410.Google Scholar
LEVINE, Murray (1984) “The Adversary Process and Social Science in the Courts: Barefoot v. Estelle” 12 The Journal of Psychiatry and Law 147.Google Scholar
LIPSON, Mark and Errol, MORRIS (1988) The Thin Blue Line. New York: Miramax.Google Scholar
MARQUART, James W. and Jonathan P., SORENSEN (in press) “A National Study of the Furman-Commuted Inmates,” The Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review.Google Scholar
MARQUART, James W. (1988) “Institutional and Post-Release Behavior of the Furman-Commuted Inmates in Texas,” 26 Criminology 677.Google Scholar
MONAHAN, John (1981) Predicting Violent Behavior: An Assessment of Clinical Techniques. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
MORRIS, Norval, and Marc, MILLER (1985) “Predictions of Dangerousness,” 6 Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research 1.Google Scholar
RICHARDS, Bill (1988) “Doctors Seek Crackdown on Colleagues Paid for Testimony in Malpractice Suits,” Wall Street Journal (November 7).Google Scholar
SARAT, Austin, and Neil, VIDMAR (1976) “Public Opinion, the Death Penalty, and the Eighth Amendment: Testing the Marshall Hypothesis,” 1976 Wisconsin Law Review 171.Google Scholar
SCOFIELD, Giles R. (1980) “Due Process in the United States Supreme Court and the Death of the Texas Capital Murder Statute,” 8 American Journal of Psychiatry and Law 1.Google Scholar
STADNIK, Edward F. A. (1989) “Institutional Behavior of Capital Murderers Receiving Life Sentences in Texas from 1974–1988.” M.A. Thesis, College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University.Google Scholar
STEADMAN, Henry, and John, COCOZZA (1974) Careers of the Criminally Insane: Excessive Social Control of Deviance. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
THORNBERRY, Terence P. and Joseph E., JACOBY (1979) The Criminally Insane: A Community Follow-Up of Mentally Ill Offenders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
TONRY, Michael (1987) “Prediction and Classification: Legal and Ethical Issues,” 9 Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research 367.Google Scholar
VIDMAR, Neil, and Tony, DITTENHOFFER (1981) “Informed Public Opinion and Death Penalty Attitudes,” 23 Canadian Journal of Criminology 43.Google Scholar
WORRELL, Claudia M. (1987) “Psychiatric Prediction of Dangerousness in Capital Sentencing: The Quest for Innocent Authority,” 5 Behavioral Sciences and the Law 433.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (1980).Google Scholar
Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983).Google Scholar
Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107 (1966).Google Scholar
Boulware v. Texas, No. 52,139, Tex. Crim. App. (1974).Google Scholar
Branch v. Texas, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).Google Scholar
Dixon v. Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 325 F. Supp. 966 (M.D. Pa. 1971).Google Scholar
Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981).Google Scholar
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes v. Texas, No. 51,827 Tex. Crim. App. (1975).Google Scholar
Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson v. South Carolina, 471 U.S. 1036 (1985).Google Scholar
Robinson v. Texas, No. 51,800 Tex. Crim. App. (1975).Google Scholar
Rodriguez v. Texas, No. 62,274 Tex. Crim. App. (1978).Google Scholar
State v. Davis, 477 A.2d 308 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Statutes Cited

TEX. HOUSE BILL 200, 63d Leg., June 14, 1973.Google Scholar
TEX. CRIM. PROC. CODE art. 37.071b–f (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.03 (1974, 1985).Google Scholar