Geographic arbitrariness? County court variation in capital prosecution and sentencing in Pennsylvania
Geographic arbitrariness? County court variation in capital prosecution and sentencing in Pennsylvania
复制标题
地理任意性？
DOI：
10.1111/1745-9133.12517
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Kramer, John H.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ulmer, Jeffery T.;Zajac, Gary;Kramer, John H.
死刑仍然是刑事处罚中最有争议的问题之一，不仅因为种族/民族差异，错误的定罪和辩护代表不足，而且还因为地理任意性的可能性。地理任意性概念中的关键经验命题是，各地对法律和程序上平等的死刑案件的反应方式大不相同。本研究评估了这一关键命题是否得到遵守。我们使用2000年至2010年宾夕法尼亚州18个县880起死刑谋杀案的数据，以检查县之间在以下方面的差异：（a）检察官提交的具体加重情节，（B）检察官提交的寻求死刑的文件，（c）检察官决定撤回死刑申请，（d）法院（法官或陪审团）决定判处死刑。首先，我们发现，县在他们的决定有很大的不同，以相同的法定代理人和谋杀的特点。第二，倾向评分加权模型显示，在起诉决定申请寻求死刑和撤回这些申请方面，特定县之间存在有意义的，有时甚至是巨大的差异。我们还发现，被告被判处死刑的可能性在各县之间存在有意义的差异，尽管差异没有检察官决定的差异那么大。几乎没有证据表明县的党派构成导致了县之间死刑结果的差异，一些有限的证据表明县的大小是影响死刑结果的一个因素。总体而言，然而，结果指出，在他们的可能性暴露和判处被告死刑的特异性特定县。Policy ImplicationsThe补救措施最相关的这项研究的结果涉及当地检察机关的自由裁量权。一项关键建议是加强加重处罚因素的法定定义本应发挥的缩小范围的作用。加重处罚因素的数量、广度和复杂性使检察官有更大的酌处权来选择可能判处死刑的案件，也使法官/陪审团有更广泛的可能判处死刑的理由，这种酌处权反过来又允许对这些加重处罚因素的解释和适用有很大的地方差异。要限制这种酌处权，就必须减少加重处罚因素的数量，并明确和狭义地界定其余因素。另一种可能的补救办法是制定关于法定加重处罚因素的加权和使用的检察准则。然而，美国的死刑事业本身就可能有其固有的地理任意性，如果是这样，除了废除死刑之外，就没有任何实际的办法来消除地理任意性。
Research SummaryThe death penalty remains one of the most controversial issues of criminal punishment not only because of racial/ethnic disparities, wrongful convictions, and inadequate defense representation but also because of the potential for geographic arbitrariness. The key empirical proposition embedded in the concept of geographic arbitrariness is that localities react to legally and procedurally equal capital cases in much different ways. This study assesses whether this key proposition is observed. We use data on 880 capital murder cases, nested in 18 counties in Pennsylvania from 2000 to 2010, to examine between‐county differences in (a) prosecutors’ filing of specific aggravating circumstances, (b) prosecutors’ filings to seek the death penalty, (c) prosecutors’ decisions to retract a death filing, and (d) court (judges’ or juries’) decisions to impose the death penalty. First, we found that counties differed substantially in their decisions connected to the same statutory aggravators and murder characteristics. Second, propensity score weighting models demonstrated meaningful and sometimes huge differences between specific counties in prosecutorial decisions to file to seek the death penalty, and to retract those filings. We also found meaningful differences in the likelihood of defendants being sentenced to death across counties, although differences were not as large as those for the prosecutorial decisions. Little evidence exists that county partisan composition accounts for differences between counties in death penalty outcomes, and some limited evidence points to county size as a factor that shapes death penalty outcomes. Overall, however, results point to the idiosyncrasy of specific counties in their likelihood of exposing and sentencing defendants to the death penalty.Policy ImplicationsThe remedies most connected to this study's findings involve local prosecutorial discretion. A key suggestion would be to strengthen the narrowing function that is supposed to be performed by statutory definitions of aggravating factors. The number, breadth, and vagueness of aggravating factors give prosecutors more expansive discretion to select cases for exposure to the death penalty, as well as judges/juries wider grounds to potentially impose it. This discretion, in turn, allows for wide local variations in the interpretation and application of these aggravating factors. Constraining this discretion would necessitate reducing the number of aggravating factors and defining the remaining ones clearly and narrowly. Another possible remedy would be prosecutorial guidelines for the weighting and use of statutory aggravating factors. The very enterprise of capital punishment in the United States, however, may well have geographic arbitrariness inherently embedded in it. If so, there would be no practical way to eliminate geographic arbitrariness short of abolishing the death penalty.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
--
发表时间：
1980
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
W. J. Bowers;G. Pierce
通讯作者：
G. Pierce
地点最重要：死亡案件检察决策的实证研究
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
Katherine Y. Barnes;D. Sloss;Stephen C. Thaman
通讯作者：
Stephen C. Thaman
DOI：
--
发表时间：
1957
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
E. Johnson
通讯作者：
E. Johnson
种族、性别和地点对南卡罗来纳州寻求死刑的检察官决定的影响
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
Michael J. Songer;Isaac Unah
通讯作者：
Isaac Unah
死刑：应该由法官还是陪审团决定谁死？
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
V. Hans;John H. Blume;T. Eisenberg;A. Hritz;Sheri Lynn Johnson;C. Royer;M. Wells
通讯作者：
M. Wells