Data from 300 homicides involving an aggravating felony were examined to determine what factors influence the prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty. It was found that the race of the victim was significantly related to the decision to seek the death penalty even when several legally relevant factors were taken into account. The data also revealed that black killers of whites were more likely and black killers of blacks less likely to have the death penalty requested. A breakdown of homicides into those involving a single aggravating felony and those involving multiple felonies revealed that racial effects were stronger in the former category. There was some evidence that this difference in the effects of race reflected a different threshold of

Prosecutorial discretion in requesting the death penalty: A case of victim-based racial discrimination.

The life and death context of a capital risk assessment requires a comprehensive forensic evaluation. Mental health professionals routinely testify regarding future dangerousness in capital proceedings but too often limit assessment to DSM-IV diagnoses and criminal history without integrating empirical and actuarial data from other sources. Given the grave magnitude of a capital risk assessment both for the defendant and society, methodological and conceptual errors of this type must be avoided. This article will describe violence risk-assessment errors made by mental health professionals testifying at capital sentencing. Observed errors include inadequate reliance on base rates, failure to consider context, susceptibility to illusory correlation, failure to define severity of violence, overreliance on clinical interview, misapplication of psychological testing, exaggerated implications of antisocial personality disorder, ignoring the effects of aging, misuse of patterns of behavior, neglect of preventive measures, insufficient data, and failure to express the risk estimate in probabilistic terms. Language: en

Don't Confuse Me With the Facts - Common Errors in Violence Risk Assessment at Capital Sentencing

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 dangerous-

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

The postconviction prison disciplinary records of capital defendants ( n = 73) who had been the subject of defense-sponsored violence risk assessments or risk-related testimony (1995–2007) that asserted an improbability of future serious prison violence were analyzed. During postconviction prison tenures averaging 4.4 years, none of the capital defendants was cited for accomplished serious assaults. The prevalence of misconduct was inversely related to severity: 54.8 percent were cited for some disciplinary misconduct, 27.4 percent for potentially violent disciplinary violations, 12.3 percent for assaultive misconduct, and 1.4 percent for attempted serious assault. Rates of misconduct among the capital offenders were equivalent to those among all inmates ( n = 18,561, annual average) in high-security federal prisons (2001–2005). The accuracy rate of forecasts of improbability stands in sharp contrast to that of prosecution-sponsored expert testimony at capital sentencing that had asserted high rates of future violence.

http://jaapl.org/content/jaapl/38/1/61.full.pdf

Improbable Predictions at Capital Sentencing: Contrasting Prison Violence Outcomes

Mental health professionals may be called upon in capital sentencing or appellate review to provide case-specific and/or scientific perspectives regarding factors that may be considered mitigating, the defendant's risk of serious violence in the future, and/or whether the defendant is a person with mental retardation. Subsequently, mental health professionals may be called upon to evaluate competency to waive appeals and competence for execution. This participation in illuminating capital sentencing determinations is a functional expression of a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions emphasizing heightened standards of reliability and individualized sentencing, as well as the relationship between psychological status and moral culpability. Mental health evaluations in death penalty cases call for specialized knowledge and familiarity with the complex considerations associated with both the role of the expert and the parameters of the assessment.


Keywords:

capital punishment;
death penalty;
bifurcated trial;
aggravating factors;
mitigating factors;
risk assessment

Sentencing Determinations in Death Penalty Cases

precludes imposition of the death penalty (vithout an individualized judgment that it is "appropriate".' Thus, "in capital cases the fundamental respect for humanity underlying the Eighth Amendment ... requires consideration of the character and record of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense as a constitutionally indispensable part of the process of inflicting the penalty of death."2 It follows that capital sentencing procedures must "allow consideration of particularized mitigating factors,"3 for

/pdf/texas-capital-sentencing-procedures-the-role-of-the-jury-and-3sdjuzp66k.pdf

Peggy C. Davis

Papers

Texas Capital Sentencing Procedures: The Role of the Jury and the Restraining Hand of the Expert