Skip to main content
Log in

The Effect of Wrongful Conviction Rate on Death Penalty Support and How It Closes the Racial Gap

  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prior studies have revealed that wrongful conviction may affect people’s view of the death penalty. But few of them explained why people who believed innocent people were executed still supported the death penalty. This study proposes that what matters may not be whether respondents believed that wrongful convictions existed or not, but rather their beliefs about the frequency of it. It examines how different estimates of the rate of wrongful conviction, rather than general concerns of innocence, affect views about capital punishment. Using Gallup data in three years, I found that people’s perceived wrongful conviction rates were negatively associated with support for the death penalty. The mediation analyses show that perceived wrongful conviction rate fully mediated the effect of being Black on death penalty support in all three years of observation. This research indicates quantifying the risk of wrongful convictions plays an important role in understanding people’s death penalty support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The National Registry of Exonerations and the Death Penalty Information Center reported different numbers of death row exonerations because they used different criteria for exoneration. A person is considered as an exoneree by NRE if there is an active official action (like pardon, acquittal, or dismissal) declaring his or her innocence. A passive official action (like not seeking a re-trial) does not count for NRE but counts for DPIC. NRE explains that an exoneration requires a reversal and then a dismissal or acquittal based on evidence of innocence not originally presented at the trial or guilty plea. DPIC does not require the additional fact of new evidence. For details, see NRE Glossary (The National Registry of Exonerations, 2020b) and DPIC Innocence Database (The Death Penalty Information Center, 2020a). The Innocence Project only reports DNA exonerations.

  2. I also estimated the models using multinomial logistic regression where the dependent variable is categorical including “oppose” (the reference outcome), “favor,” and “don’t know” (available upon request). The conclusion still holds that people who perceived a higher wrongful conviction rate were significantly less likely to support the death penalty than to oppose it.

  3. In the 2000 dataset, researchers have to combine two questions (Q22 & Q23) to create one single measurement for perceived wrongful conviction rate. In the 2003 and 2005 datasets, these two questions have been combined and perceived wrongful conviction rate is reflected in one single variable named “dp_innoncent_pct.”.

  4. Models using multiple imputation (m = 10) also yielded similar results (available upon request).

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sishi Wu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 307 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, S. The Effect of Wrongful Conviction Rate on Death Penalty Support and How It Closes the Racial Gap. Am J Crim Just 47, 1006–1024 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-021-09637-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-021-09637-6

Keywords

Navigation