Sinners and Saints: The Role of Social Standing Evidence in Capital Sentencing

References

• Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bersoff, D. N., & Ogden, D. W. (1987). In the Supreme Court of the United States Lockhart v. McCree: Amicus curiae brief for the American Psychological Association. American Psychologist, 42, 59–68. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.42.1.59
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987).
   Google Scholar
• Boppre, A., & Miller, M. K. (2014). How victim and execution impact statements affect mock jurors’ perceptions, emotions, and verdicts. Victim & Offenders, 9, 413–435. doi:10.1080/15564886.2013.845124
   Google Scholar
• Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burkhead, M., Luginbuhl, J., & Wrenn, S. (1994, March). Victim impact evidence in capital trials: What are its effects? Poster presented at the meetings of the American-Psychology-Law Association, Sante Fe, NM.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, B. (2008). The role of death qualification in venirepersons’ susceptibility to victim impact statements. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 14, 133–141. doi:10.1080/10683160701483534
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, B. M., & Moran, G. (2002). The role of death qualification in venirepersons’ evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law & Human Behavior, 26, 175–184. doi:10.1023/A:1014640025871
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daftary-Kapur, T., Tallon, J. A., Groscup, J. L., & Penrod, S. D. (under revision). Fighting fire with fire? Execution impact evidence as a moderator of victim impact statements.
   Google Scholar
• Death Penalty Information Center. (2016). Legal issues: States that allow victim impact statements. Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legal-issues-states-allow-victim-impact-statements
   Google Scholar
• Devine, D. J., & Caughlin, D. E. (2014). Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 109–134. doi:10.1037/law0000006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenberg, T., Garvey, S. P., & Wells, M. T. (2003). Victim characteristics and victim impact evidence in South Carolina capital cases (Paper 290). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Law Faculty.
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, T. M., & Brodsky, S. L. (2007). The influence of victim impact statements on sentencing in capital cases. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7, 45–52. doi:10.1300/J158v07n02_03
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, E. (1999). The many guises of victim impact evidence and effects on jurors’ judgments. Psychology, Crime and Law, 5, 331–348. doi:10.1080/10683169908401776
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, E., Koehring, H., & Quiat, M. (1998). Victim impact evidence in capital cases: Does the victim’s character matter? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 145–156. doi:10.1111/jasp.1998.28.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guastello, C. (2005). Victim impact statements: Institutionalized revenge. Arizona State Law Journal, 37, 1321–1340.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, P. (2006). Victim impact statements in capital sentencing and Humphries v. Ozmint – Do “worthless” defendants pay a higher price? New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement, 32, 251–278.
   Google Scholar
• Logan, W. (1999). Through the past darkly: A survey of the uses and abuses of victim impact evidence in capital trials. Arizona Law Review, 41, 143–192.
   Google Scholar
• Luginbuhl, J., & Burkhead, M. (1995). Victim impact evidence in a capital trial: Encouraging votes for death. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 1–16. doi:10.1007/BF02886115
   Google Scholar
• Mazzella, R., & Feingold, A. (1994). The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1315–1338. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb01552.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCullum v. Dretke, 89 Fed.Appx. 888 (5th Cir. 2004)
   Google Scholar
• Menard, S. (2002). Applied logistic regression analysis. In Sage university papers series on quantitative applications in the social sciences (pp. 70–106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, B., & Arbuthnot, J. (1999). The effects of victim impact evidence on the verdicts and sentencing judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 29, 95–112. doi:10.1300/J076v29n03_05
   Google Scholar
• Myers, B., Godwin, D., Latter, R., & Winstanley, S. (2004). Victim impact statements and mock juror sentencing: The impact of dehumanizing language on a death qualified sample. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 22, 39–55.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, B., & Greene, E. (2004). The prejudicial nature of victim impact statements: Implications for capital sentencing policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 492–515. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, B., Lynn, S. J., & Arbuthnot, J. (2002). Victim impact testimony and juror judgments: The effects of harm information and witness demeanor. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2393–2412. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01869.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, B., Roop, A., Kalnen, D., & Kehn, A. (2013). Victim impact statements and crime heinousness: A test of the saturation hypothesis. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19, 129–143. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2011.614244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Neil, K. M., Patry, M. W., & Penrod, S. D. (2004). Exploring the effects of attitudes toward the death penalty on capital sentencing verdicts. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 10, 443–470. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.443
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paternoster, R., & Deise, J. (2011). A heavy thumb on the scale: The effect of victim impact evidence on capital decision making. Criminology, 49, 129–161. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00220.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payne v. Tennessee, 111 S. Ct. 2597 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Penry v. Lynaugh, 492, U. S. (302) (1989).
   Google Scholar
• People v. Ochoa, 966 P. 2d 442-(1998)
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, S. (2009). Status disparities in the capital of capital punishment. Law & Society Review, 43, 807–838. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5893.2009.00389.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richards, T. N., Smith, M. D., Jennings, W. G., Bjerregaard, B., & Fogel, S. J. (2014). An examination of defendant sex disparity in capital sentencing: A propensity score matching approach. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 681–697. doi:10.1007/s12103-014-9253-7
   Google Scholar
• South Carolina v. Gathers. 490 U.S. 805 (1989).
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson, M. C., Bottoms, B. L., & Diamond, S. S. (2010). Jurors’ discussions of a defendant’s history of child abuse and alcohol abuse in capital sentencing deliberations. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 16, 1–38. doi:10.1037/a0018404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. v. Bernard & Vialva, 299 F.3d 467 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Uttecht v. Brown, 127 S. Ct. 2218, 551 U.S. 1, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1014 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 105 S. Ct. 844, 83 L. Ed. 2d 841 (1985).
   Google Scholar
• Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S. Ct. 1770, 20 L. Ed. 2d 776 (1968).
   Google Scholar