Abstract

This study examines the effect of defendant Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) on sentencing decisions in death penalty cases. Relying on Focal Concerns Theory and the affect heuristic, we examine the relative importance of substantive rationalities (blameworthiness and protection of the community from harm) and affect (anger and sympathy) in explaining the impact of such evidence. U.S. adults participated in a mock juror tasks in which exposure to ACEs as mitigating evidence was experimentally manipulated. Defense testimony elicited leniency, largely operating through affective responses to ACE evidence. Evidence of abuse did not contribute to evaluations of the defendant as a greater threat to the community. Substantive rationalities explained variability in sentencing decisions, but did not explain a substantial portion of the impact of ACE evidence. Implications for the constitutionality of capital punishment and directions for future research are discussed.

摘要

本研究探讨了被告童年不良经历 (ACE) 对死刑案件量刑决定的影响。依靠焦点关注理论和影响启发式，我们检验了实质理性（可责备性和保护社区免受伤害）和影响（愤怒和同情）在解释此类证据的影响时的相对重要性。美国成年人参加了一项模拟陪审员任务，其中通过实验操纵将 ACE 暴露作为减轻证据。辩方证词导致宽大处理，主要是通过对 ACE 证据的情感反应来运作。虐待的证据无助于将被告评估为对社区的更大威胁。实质性合理性解释了量刑决定的可变性，但没有解释 ACE 证据影响的很大一部分。讨论了死刑合宪性的意义和未来研究的方向。