RAPID: Impact of Changing Death Penalty Unanimity Requirements on Case Decisions

佛罗里达州最近宣布了一项立法，将修改陪审团死刑的量刑要求。具体地说，虽然以前陪审团必须一致同意才能建议判处死刑，但新规则只要求12名陪审员中有8名投票赞成死刑就可以建议死刑。尽管先前的研究表明，不出所料，在多数规则下比在一致同意规则下更有可能作出死刑决定，但量刑决定规则和预审决定之间的关系(例如，接受辩诉交易)不太清楚。有人可能会认为，减少死刑建议所需的陪审员人数，从而使死刑更有可能被判处，将会增加辩诉交易被接受的数量。然而，有理论上的理由相信，可能会发生相反的情况。不同的决策理论将论证转向非一致对预审决定的不同影响，一些人主张减少接受的辩诉交易，一些人主张增加接受的辩诉交易。这里特别相关的是审判的阴影理论和前景理论，这两个理论随着死刑判决风险的增加而做出相反的预测。拟议的研究试图澄清我们对一致意见规则对预审决定的影响的理论和现实世界的理解。具体地说，我们将收集佛罗里达州一级谋杀案的真实数据，包括拟议的变化在几个月后生效前后的数据。通过这项研究获得的知识直接为法律行为者做出的决定提供信息，包括辩护律师和检察官。在所有阶段跟踪立法变化对法律系统的影响是很重要的，因为这可以为其他司法管辖区做出的决定提供信息，这些司法管辖区可能正在考虑类似的变化。这一裁决反映了NSF的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的智力优势和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。

Florida recently announced legislation that will revise jury death penalty sentencing requirements. Specifically, while previously a jury had to be unanimous to recommend a death sentence versus a sentence of life without parole, the new rule requires only a majority eight of 12 jurors to vote for death to recommend the death penalty. Although research has previously shown that, predictably, death penalty decisions are more likely under a majority rule than a unanimity rule, the relationship between the sentencing decision rule and pre-trial decision-making (e.g., accepting a plea bargain) is less clear. One might assume that lowering the number of jurors required for a recommendation of death, thereby making a death sentence more likely, would increase the number of plea bargains accepted. However, there are theoretical reasons to believe that the opposite might happen. Different theories of decision-making would argue for different impacts of a shift to non-unanimity on pre-trial decisions, with some arguing for a decrease in plea bargains accepted and some an increase in plea bargains accepted. Of particular relevance here are Shadow of the Trial theory and Prospect Theory, which make opposite predictions as the risk of a death sentence increases. The proposed study seeks to clarify our theoretical and real-world understanding of the impact of unanimity rules on pre-trial decisions. Specifically, we will gather real-world data on first-degree murder cases in the state of Florida both before and after the proposed change goes into effect in a few months. The knowledge gained through this research directly informs decisions made by legal actors, including defense attorneys and prosecutors. It is important to track the impact of legislative changes on the legal system at all stages, as this can inform decisions made in other jurisdictions that may be considering similar changes.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.