An examination of the effects of mental disorders as mitigating factors on capital sentencing outcomes.

Mentally ill and emotionally disturbed offenders comprise a significant component of those whose criminal conduct has swept them into the criminal justice system, including a subset who are tried and convicted of capital murder. The present study employs the population of capital cases advanced to penalty phase in the state of North Carolina (1990-2009) to examine whether presentation to the jury of the statutory mitigators of extreme mental and emotional disturbance and capacity impaired, and specific mental illness diagnoses, often referred to as mental disorders, at the sentencing phase mitigate against a sentence of death. Mental disorders included mood disorders, psychotic disorders, anxiety disorders, brain disorders, multiple mental illness diagnoses, learning disabilities, and personality disorders. Results from these 835 cases indicate that with the exception of one, the diagnosis of a learning disability, the capital jury's acceptance of various mental health conditions does not effectively mitigate against a capital sentence. In addition, jury rejection of a diagnosis of mental illness or the two mental health statutory mitigators, capacity impaired and extreme emotional disturbance, as a mitigating factor has a counter-mitigating effect in that it significantly increases the odds of a death penalty recommendation by about 85-200%.

A propensity score matching analysis of the relationship between victim sex and capital juror decision-making in North Carolina.

A small body of prior research has examined the impact of victim sex on jury death penalty decision-making and the majority of this research has demonstrated some evidence of a "female victim effect" such that cases involving a female victim are more likely to receive the death penalty than similarly situated cases with a male victim. However, within this line of research studies have suggested that victim sex may work in conjunction with other case characteristics. In order to further explore this phenomenon, the current study examines a near-population of death penalty cases from North Carolina (n=1069) from 1977-2009 using propensity score matching. Results demonstrate that once cases are matched on more than 50 legal and extralegal case characteristics, there is no statistically significant or substantive link between victim sex and death penalty decision-making. Findings suggest that it is concrete differences in the legal and extralegal factors observed in cases with female victims compared to male victims that shape jury death sentence decisions rather than a direct effect of victim sex (before matching: OR=1.53; 95% CI=1.20-1.95; p<.001/after matching: OR=0.90; 95% CI=0.66-1.24; p=.52). Study limitations and implications are also discussed.

When domestic goes capital: Juror decision making in capital murder trials involving domestic homicide.

Prior research suggests that homicide cases involving familial offenders and victims are subject to a "domestic discount" that reduces sentencing severity. However, the operation of a domestic discount in regard to death penalty sentencing has been rarely examined. The current research uses a near-population of jury decisions in capital murder trials conducted in North Carolina from 1991 to 2009 (n = 800), and a series of logistic regression analyses to determine whether there is (a) a direct effect between offender-victim relationship (e.g., domestic, friend/acquaintance, and stranger) and jury decision making, and/or (b) whether domestic offender-victim relationship (as well as other offender-victim relationships) moderates the effect of legal and extralegal case characteristics on jury assessment of the death penalty. Our findings revealed no empirical support for a "domestic discount" whereby juries are less likely to impose death sentences in cases involving domestic homicides. However, substantial differences in predictors of death sentencing were found across offender-victim dyads; most notably, domestic homicide cases demonstrated the most legalistic model of jury decisions to impose death sentences.

Framing deadly domestic violence: why the media's spin matters in newspaper coverage of femicide.

The news media play a substantial role in shaping society's perceptions of social issues, including domestic violence. However, minimal research has been conducted to examine whether news media frame stories of femicide within the context of domestic violence. Using frame analysis, the present research compares newspaper articles representing 113 cases of femicide that define the murder as domestic violence to a random sample of 113 cases without coverage defining the femicide as domestic violence. Findings indicate that both groups are represented by multiple frames, including a previously unidentified frame that places the femicide in the context of domestic violence as a social problem.