predicting support for capital punishment: the role …
TRANSCRIPT
The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
School of Public Affairs
PREDICTING SUPPORT FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT:
THE ROLE OF CAUSAL ATTRIBUTES, FEAR OF CRIME, AND
DEMOGRAPHICS
A Thesis in
Criminal Justice
by
Matthew Lochinger
© 2013 Matthew Lochinger
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Arts
May 2013
ii
The thesis of Matthew Lochinger was reviewed and approved* by the following:
Donald Hummer
Professor of Criminal Justice
Thesis Advisor
Anne Douds
Professor of Criminal Justice
Joongyeup Lee
Professor of Criminal Justice
James Ruiz
Professor of Criminal Justice
Department Head of Criminal Justice Graduate Program
*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School
iii
ABSTRACT
Favorable opinions of capital punishment are the lowest they have been in forty years.
Research over the past decade has attributed this decline in support to increased knowledge in
the death penalty process and willingness to accept alternative sanctions such as a true life
sentence without the possibility of parole. There is mixed support for special populations of
offenders such as juveniles and the mentally retarded. The present study will employ the survey
research method to gauge support for the death penalty among Penn State undergraduate
students. In addition, it will determine if specific demographic characteristics, fear of crime and
causal attributes are predictors of favorable capital punishment opinions.
iv
Table of Contents
List of Tables....................................................................................................................v
Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………..…………………………………..1
Chapter 2: Literature Review…………………………………………………………...5
Death Penalty Opinions……………………………………………………………..….6
Fear of Crime………………………………………………………………….…………11
Causal Attributes………………………………………………………………………...13
Specific Crime Theories……………………………………………………………...…15
Chapter 3: Methods……………………………………………………………….…....18
Purpose of the Study…………………............…………………………….......19
.Hypotheses……...........…………………………………………………………………19
Data Collection Method………………………............…...……………………….....20
Independent Variables……………...…………………………………………….........22
Death Penalty Support Measures………...…………………………………........…..23
Chapter 4: Findings..........................................................................................................24
Demographic Tables............................................................................................25
Chi-Square Tables................................................................................................33
Chapter 5: Conclusion......................................................................................................43
Appendix A: Questionnaire……………………………….………………................….48
Appendix B: Significant Chi-Square Tables........................................... ........................52
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………….....56
v
List of Tables
Table 4.1: Respondents' Demographic Information..................................................................25
Table 4.2: Participants' Responses to Capital Punishment Questions.......................................26
Table 4.3: Participants' Responses to Fear of Crime Questions................................................28
Table 4.4 Participants' Responses to Crime Causation Questions...........................................30
Table 4.5 Participants' Responses to Capital Punishment Exoneration Questions...................32
Table 4.6 Chi-Square Test of Significance: Capital Punishment Questions............................33
Table 4.7 Chi-Square Test of Significance: Capital Punishment Questions for Juveniles.......35
Table 4.8 Chi-Square Test of Significance: Capital Punishment Questions for the
Mentally Retarded....................................................................................................37
Table 4.9 Chi-Square Test of Significance: Capital Punishment Questions for the
Mentally Ill................................................................................................................39
Table 4.10 Chi-Square Test of Significance: Capital Punishment Questions for the
Mentally Retarded.....................................................................................................41
1
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
2
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the death penalty in the case of Gregg v. Georgia
(1976) allowed for Americans once again to debate the issue of capital punishment following a
brief four year suspension. The result of Furman v. Georgia (1972) stated that putting an
individual to death was “cruel and unusual punishment.” This meant that Eighth Amendment
rights were violated which made the death penalty unconstitutional. Today, American citizens
generally have more fundamental reasons for opposing capital punishment. Use of the death
penalty is quite rare in the United States, but the debate endures because of its ethical concerns,
cost, and alternative forms of punishment available.
Favorable opinions of capital punishment have been consistently trending downward
(Gallup). Researchers are asking more in-depth questions about the topic rather than simply
asking yes/no. The public is becoming more knowledgeable about the death penalty process and
available alternatives which is causing unfavorable opinions to slowly increase. Certain
populations of special offenders can no longer be subject to execution. Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
determined that executing mentally retarded offenders violated the Eighth Amendment as being
“cruel and unusual.” Then, in 2005, in the case of Roper v. Simmons the Supreme Court ruled
that convicted murderers under the age of 18 could not be executed, overruling Stanford v.
Kentucky (1988) that drew the line at 16 and older.
Currently, the death penalty debate in the United States is not attracting as much attention
as other controversial topics. The recent presidential election saw the candidates debate over
abortion and gun laws in relation to automatic weapons. The marijuana debate was ignited when
Colorado and Washington state legalized recreational use of the drug. High-profile cases such as
3
Timothy McVeigh and Scott Peterson brought the death penalty debate to the forefront in past
years. Now, when someone is executed, more attention is given to the protestors and mobs of
people outside the execution chamber than the individual being put to death. The media reports
on the death penalty activists and typically puts their own spin on the issue. Ellsworth and Gross
(1994) stated, “The legal status of the death penalty in the United States depends on popular
support, actual and perceived.” Public opinion combined with the influence of modern media can
create significant momentum toward changing or altering policy.
Also fueling the death penalty debate in the United States is the Innocence Project.
Founded in 1992, the Innocence Project is committed to assisting prisoners who could be proven
innocent through DNA testing. They have made it clear that wrongful sentences and unjust
imprisonment is not rare, citing more than 300 individuals who have been exonerated by DNA
testing and eighteen who have sat on death row (Innocence Project, 2012). The individuals
exonerated through DNA testing spent an average of thirteen years in prison prior to their release
(Innocence Project, 2012). The frequent exonerations due to errors made by the criminal justice
system, especially in cases of those who have sat on death row, are powerful tools for changing
perspectives on the death penalty. The Innocence Project has been clear that false information
provided by eyewitnesses and poor forensic oversight has led to many wrongful convictions
which has wasted millions of dollars in subsequent unnecessary appeals. Additionally, the
Innocence Project has pointed out that wrongful executions are a near certainty since DNA
testing is possible in only five to ten percent of all criminal cases (Innocence Project, 2012).
The major purpose of this study is to gauge support for the death penalty among Penn
4
State undergraduate students. In addition, their support for the death penalty for the previously
mentioned “special offender” populations will be a key area of focus. Prior research suggests that
favorable opinions of capital punishment still holds a significant majority but since peaking in
the 1980’s and early 90’s, support has decreased among the American people. This study will
seek to update the findings to date as well as add additional insight with more in-depth questions
about death penalty opinions and their relationship to fear of crime, demographics and causal
attributes. Surveying college students about their opinions toward capital punishment is relevant
to the current debate making this study a necessity. College students represent the future of the
United States and will be the ones making critical policy decisions. Understanding their current
views can help predict whether capital punishment will exist in the coming decades. Also, it will
identify their opinions on crime causation. Countless studies have been conducted on why people
engage in criminal activity but few ask solely the opinions of college students and then study the
mediating effect it has on their attitudes toward capital punishment.
Additionally, this study is necessary because there is simply not an abundance of recent
studies that focus on college students. As the literature review will point out, gender and race are
the more appealing demographics to research and analyze. In addition to gauging death penalty
support, this study will examine the mediating effect of fear of crime and causal attributes. There
is also a shortage of empirical research on death penalty attitudes toward populations of special
offenders such as juveniles and the mentally ill. This study will seek to address the insufficient
research on special offender populations.
5
Chapter 2. Literature Review
6
Death Penalty Opinions
While the present study will ask only the opinions of college students, past studies will be
reviewed pertaining to all populations of American people. Gallup polls indicate that the
opinions of the age range of college students toward capital punishment are consistent with the
overall population polls. To best illustrate the evolving opinions of capital punishment, literature
must be reviewed dating back to the mid 1970’s which was when Greg v. Georgia (1976) took
place, along with the sudden increase in support.
Whether it was the public’s anger in the early to mid 1970’s because of the Vietnam War,
the dramatic increase in gas prices because of the oil embargo, or just a renewed thirst for justice
resulting from a suspension of the use of capital punishment, favorable opinions significantly
increased from 50% to a two-thirds majority by 1976 (Gallup). Charles Thomas’s study (1977)
revealed that, like the Gallup Poll, two-thirds of his sample size supported capital punishment.
He found that Americans favored a more “retributitive” perspective which he labeled as equal
justice for the offender (Thomas, 1977). A smaller population favored the idea of the death
penalty as a deterrent, but the main point is to show that during the time of the study, people
argued about reasons for administering the death penalty rather than whether or not they favored
it. Ellsworth and Gross (1994) indirectly supported these findings by identifying retribution and
deterrence as the two primary reasons for supporting the death penalty.
Continuing this trend of high support, Bohm (1990) conducted an experimental research
design devoted to obtaining college student’s opinions on the death penalty before and after
educating them in a regular classroom setting about the entire process. Slightly more the two-
7
thirds of the students showed support, and there was no significant change following the class
(Bohm, 1990).
As support reached nearly an all-time high in the early to mid 1990’s, Ellsworth and
Gross (1994) conducted one of more informative death penalty studies to date. Along with basic
support, they broke down the opinions into several demographic categories. They found that men
favor the death penalty more than women, whites more than blacks, middle class more than the
poor and republicans over democrats (Ellsworth & Gross, 1994). Additionally, they speculated
that the public’s emotional reaction to violent crimes rather than factual knowledge about the
process of the death penalty contributed to high support. Eleven years later, support had declined
some 10% but still was considerably high at 70 percent overall (Gallup). Unnever and colleagues
(2005) expanded on Ellsworth and Gross’s idea that the lack of factual knowledge played a
significant role in support. His study revealed that over half of the two-thirds majority that
supported the death penalty had “weakly held attitudes” which simply implies rather moderate
support. He and his colleagues hypothesized that this was a result of a lack of knowledge about
the workings of the death penalty system and that additional facts could sway their opinions.
Expanding on the idea that the public is not well informed on how the capital punishment
system works, Eric Lambert (2011) and colleagues designed a study to help understand college
student’s knowledge of the system. This experimental study initially asked for the students
support and knowledge of the factors involved in the death penalty process, and then asked them
again after reading various essays relating to the process. Over one-third of their sample size
8
changed their opinion, and the study revealed a 28 percent drop in support (Lambert, 2011).
These findings supported their hypothesis that exposure to additional information would change
the opinions of the college students. Vollum (2004) found that people were gradually becoming
more knowledgeable about the death penalty system which resulted in their confidence in the
system being rather low. Just less than half of his sample size (48%) showed little or no
confidence in the system. These individuals concerns were that, “potential innocent people are
being executed, lack of adequate legal counsel, and/or limited access to appeals” (Vollum, 2004).
There have been many demographical studies that identify the differences in support of
gender and race. Cochran and Sanders (2009) study produced results that showed men support
capital punishment (74%) significantly more than women (63%) which parallels Ellsworth and
Gross’s 1994 findings. They identified that this 10-12% gap was consistent for nearly a thirty-
year period. Speculation was that it is biological in nature but an absolute conclusion could not
be made.
More current literature gauging racial support endorses Ellsworth and Gross’s (1994)
findings that whites support the death penalty more than blacks. According to Baker (2005),
white college students supported the death penalty (62%) significantly more than black college
students (42%). Additionally, black students felt that the death penalty was directed toward the
poor and the minorities and that putting them to death is unfair and could have a “brutalization
effect” which simply means the death penalty could lead to additional violence (Baker, 2005).
Whites supported the death penalty because they felt it helped deter crime and served as justice
for the offender.
9
Shifting the focus to populations of special offenders, Boots and colleagues (2004) found
that 63 percent support the death penalty for juveniles over the age of 16 while only 29 percent
supported executing the mentally ill. White males tend to support the death penalty for the
mentally ill while females and blacks generally do not (Boots, 2004). This low support has been
fairly consistent for mentally ill offenders even back when overall support was peaking. The
1988 Harris poll showed only 21 percent support for execution of the mentally ill. That total
dipped under 10 percent in the mid 1990’s.
Contrary to Boots's (2004) findings, national polls such as Gallup and Harris found low
death penalty support for juveniles. A 2002 Gallup poll showed only 26 percent support for
executing juveniles while a 2003 Harris Poll showed 29 percent. Interestingly, despite the
reported low support, the Harris poll found that 51 percent favored the death penalty for Lee
Boyd Malvo, one of the DC snipers who was seventeen at the time of the killings (Harris, 2003).
Gauging support for the juvenile death penalty has a growing importance due to the fact
that the number of violent crimes, including murder, carried out by juveniles is significant. For
example, in 2006 juveniles under the age of eighteen at the time of the offense were responsible
for over 1,100 murders in the United States which was a 1.2 percent increase from 2005 (Flexon,
2011). Flexion (2011) points out that one of the primary rationales for the death penalty is
deterrence but how that may not necessarily apply to juveniles. Streib (2004) argued that
different psychological perspectives and immaturity does not generally allow juveniles to be
deterred by the death penalty the same way adults are. Streib states that, "...juveniles have a
diminished capacity for making decisions as compared to adults, thereby rendering the death
penalty an ineffective deterrent to youth" (Streib, 2004).
10
Another concern about subjecting juveniles to the death penalty is the belief that an
adolescent’s character is not static (Steinberg & Scott, 2003). The authors maintain that youth
have not formed a stable character and cannot be held liable at the expense of his or her life for
something that could certainly be altered or completely changed as he or she matures. This belief
was echoed in the aforementioned Roper v. Simmons (2005) case. In a similar vein, Furby &
Beyth-Marom (1992) found that outside influences (peer pressure) and less emphasis on
potential risk separate juveniles from adults and that juveniles inability to process these factors
should result in them not being subject to the death penalty.
While Akins v. Virginia (2002) determined that nobody who is mentally retarded could
face execution, the Supreme Court left it to the states to decide what constitutes being mentally
retarded. Foerschner (2010) points out that most states that have the death penalty look at three
primary factors when determining if an individual qualifies as being mentally retarded; IQ score,
measuring of adaptive skills to identify strengths and weaknesses, and age at which the condition
first appeared is determined. Three of the primary arguments against executing the mentally
retarded are that they are not fully culpable for their actions, cannot actively participate in their
own defense, and cannot fully understand the true nature of the punishment (Foerschner, 2010).
There is consistent literature that parallels Boots (2004) study and the 1988 Harris poll
concerning low support for executing the mentally retarded. A 1995 poll by Princeton Survey
Research Associates indicated that a mere nine percent of those surveyed were willing to execute
a mentally retarded murderer (Gross, 1998).
It is unconstitutional to execute someone who is mentally retarded or someone proven to
be insane to the point where the individual does not understand the punishment but those who
11
suffer from some sort of lesser mental illness remain subject to execution. Mental Health
America (2009) estimates that 5-10% of death row inmates suffer from a severe mental illness.
The same organization also argues that nearly all death row inmates have some sort of mental
illness whether it stemmed from childhood abuse or some sort of biological issue. A 2002 Gallup
Poll showed that only 19% of people favored executing the mentally ill. There is significant gray
area regarding the execution of mentally ill offenders. For example, a judge in Florida recently
sentenced a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic to death. The judge accepted that the offender had
a history of mental illness "there is no evidence that his mental illness interferes, in any way,
with his 'rational understanding' of the fact of his pending execution and the reason for it"
(Pilkington, 2012). Again, there is significant gray area here since it is the responsibility of the
states to determine what falls under the parameters of a mental illness. Those in favor of
supporting the death penalty for the mentally ill cite cases such as Andrea Yates who killed her
five children in 2001 by drowning them in her home. She was said to have postpartum psychosis
and postpartum depression and sentenced to life in prison only to have that appealed and
eventually committed to a high-security mental health facility (Montaldo, 2006). There was
significant backlash from the prosecution and the general public on this ruling since five helpless
children were the victims and the fact that there was the general belief that she knew exactly
what she was doing (Montaldo, 2006).
Fear of crime has been defined as an “emotional response of dread or anxiety about crime
or symbols that a person associates with crime” (Ferraro, 1995). Those with more punitive
attitudes support harsher punishments because they are afraid that they, their families, or others
in the community are at risk to become victims of crime (Tyler and Boeckmann, 1997). Fear of
12
victimization may motivate and encourage an individual to look to the courts and policy makers
for safety through harsher penalties for offenders.
Previous literature indicates inconsistent findings on whether fear of crime is a predictor
of favorable death penalty opinions. Through a mail survey of 839 participants, Thomas and
Foster (1973) found a connection between fear of victimization and support for capital
punishment. The authors point out, however, that only 32% of their target population responded,
and the majority of those respondents were older, white males.
Fattah (1979) used Gallup poll data and found no correlation between fear of crime and
favorable death penalty opinions. Tyler and Weber (1982) found that social and political beliefs
developed during childhood impact death penalty opinions more than fear of crime. There was
some indication of fear of crime’s connection to the death penalty, but the authors identified it as
a weak correlation.
One of the more insightful studies conducted on this topic was Seltzer and McCormick’s
(1987) analysis of the impact of fear of crime on death penalty attitudes. The authors interviewed
610 participants in two Maryland counties via telephone. They found that respondents who
reported that they were “very afraid” of being victims of a serious crime supported harsher
penalties for convicted murderers, but overall the correlation was still weak in regards to being a
predictor of favorable death penalty attitudes (Seltzer & McCormick, 1987). Those who
responded that they were “somewhat afraid” were much less supportive of the death penalty.
These findings supported Tyler and Weber’s (1982) study that also concluded that there is a
weak correlation. Keil and Vito’s (1991) study of 619 Kentucky residents proved to be a stark
13
contrast from the previous findings. Their study revealed that fear of crime results in a greater
willingness to support the death penalty (Keil & Vito, 1991).
More current studies support Keil & Vito’s (1991) findings that fear of crime is a
predictor of harsher penalties. Klama (2011) found that individuals who fear being the victim of
a crime have more punitive attitudes than those who do not, while Hogan (2005) found that fear
of crime was a predictor of punitive attitudes for everyone except for white males.
Various studies conducted in the mid 90’s (Sacco, 1995; Surette, 1996) suggest that the
media plays a significant role on this issue and distorts crime rates which cause the public to
respond that they are more fearful of being victimized. Warr (1995) found that fear of crime has
actually remained quite stable for two decades despite the media reporting a significant increase
over the time period.
Causal Attributes
Rennie (1978) suggested that the public’s ideas and theories of what causes people to
commit crime should influence their attitudes toward punishment. There is an abundance of
literature regarding crime causation and its connection to fear of crime and punitive attitudes
toward offenders. Some studies focus on specific crime theories while others take a wider
approach to reasons why people commit crime. Campbell and Muncer (1990) point out how
studies over the years have found considerable overlap when it comes to perceived causes of
crime. There is neither one singular reason nor one singular theory that dominates the findings as
to why people engage in crime.
One of the more in-depth and informative studies regarding this issue is Carroll and
Payne’s (1977) study involving crime seriousness, punitive attitudes and causal attributes. They
14
hypothesized that individuals would be more punitive when they perceived the offender was the
primary cause for criminal action rather than the environment. Their subject pool was 64
psychology students and an “expert pool” of 24 parole decision makers (Carroll & Payne, 1977).
The results indicated that students had punitive attitudes toward offenders who committed crimes
because of internal factors (e.g., anger or hate). The expert pool saw violent offenders as less
likely to recidivate but still favored longer prison sentences for crimes caused by internal factors
than external factors (e.g., the environment, poverty). The authors outlined only two overriding
reasons why people commit crime, but their study clearly shows that their respondents had more
punitive attitudes for crimes caused primarily by the offender rather than crimes occurring as a
result of the environment (Carroll & Payne, 1977).
Cullen and colleagues (1985) designed a study to assess the impact of attribution on
sanctioning scales such as punishment, capital punishment, and rehabilitation. Age, gender, and
income were three of the demographic characteristics identified. The authors looked at two major
schools of thought in criminological theory regarding crime causation. First, the classical school
of thought was examined which is the idea that crime results from dispositional characteristics
such as a lack of self-control or poor character. The second school of thought is the positivist
perspective which states that environmental issues such as poor living conditions or other
external influences are the root causes of crime. The results show that as scores increased for the
positivist school of thought, support for punishment and capital punishment decreased (Cullen,
1985). These findings are generally consistent with Carroll and Payne’s (1977) findings which
suggest that individuals have less punitive attitudes toward crime as a result of the environment
or external influences. The two conservative groups supported the dispositional causes
15
significantly more than the liberal respondents, but overall the trend continued that attitudes are
more punitive toward crime causation from the classical school of thought than the positivist
view. Grasmick and McGill (1994) conducted a study also focusing on the correlation between
crime causation and punitive attitudes toward juvenile offenders. With punitiveness toward
juvenile offenders as the dependent variable, the authors sought to test their hypothesis that
dispositional factors led to more punitive attitudes than environmental factors. Similar to Clark
(1993), they found strong support for their hypothesis that dispositional items resulted in more
punitive attitudes than external influences (Grasmick & McGill, 1994). Although Davis (1993)
focused solely on juveniles, her results were parallel with the previous studies which indicate
that internal factors result in more punitive attitudes.
In a study that asked 29 members of a psychology class at a community college,
Campbell and Muncer (1990) found that social or external factors were a better predictor than
psychological or personal motives making these findings a direct contrast to many of
the previous studies. Overall, poor childhood conditions, poverty, and drug use were the most
popular responses.
Specific Crime Theories
The survey attached to the present study will cover various specific crime theories under
the situational and dispositional items sections. For the most part, the previously discussed
literature sought to answer whether the primary culprit in crime causation was the offender or the
environment. For the purpose of this study, it is important to identify if the specific situational
and dispositional items in question are empirically supported.
16
Components of Agnew’s general strain theory (1992, 2006) are seen in the “situational
items” on this study’s survey. The primary component of the theory that the survey
inquires about is the “experience of a negative stimuli” (Agnew, 1992). Basically, an individual
experiences what he or she views as a negative event and turns to crime as a coping mechanism.
There is considerable empirical support for general strain theory. Hoffman and Cerbone (1999)
hypothesized that a high number of stressful events will significantly increase delinquency
among youths. Their study covered four years which began with the youths being between the
ages of 10-13. While their findings did not reveal consistent evidence that stressful situations
directly led to anger, a key component of GST, they found that youths who experienced a higher
frequency of “negative stimuli” were more likely to become delinquent (Hoffman & Cerbone,
1999).
With the help of Brezina, Wright, and Cullen, Agnew (2002) tested his own theory to
gauge support and to extend it by identifying which types of strain most commonly lead to
delinquency, and why certain adolescents become delinquent as a result of strain while others do
not. The findings show extremely strong support that strain leads to criminal behavior.
Additionally, Agnew’s hypothesis was supported that those high in “negative emotionality/low
constraint” were much more likely to become delinquent than those who were not (Agnew,
2002). Finally, Agnew (2002) found that delinquency is higher among those who experienced
family, school, and neighborhood strain.
Moon and colleagues (2008) elaborated on this issue by finding that students who were
recently punished by their teachers or recently the victim of a crime were more likely to become
17
delinquent. Contrary to previous literature, factors such as parental punishment and being bullied
were not indicators of future deviant behavior. Overall, however, the study suggested that strain
was a predictor of delinquency which supports Agnew’s (1992) general strain theory.
- The primary theory relating to the “dispositional items” portion of the survey is
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control theory or general theory of crime, which basically
states that individuals who lack self-control are more likely to engage in criminal behavior. This
lack of self-control mainly stems from poor parenting and the absence of social bonds, and these
individuals cannot resist the short-term pleasures that result from criminal acts (Gottfredson &
Hirschi, 1990).
For the most part, the general theory of crime is empirically supported. Studies such as
Alvarez-Rivera and Fox (2010) found evidence against the theory but their study was heavily
biased toward Hispanic students. Blackwell and Piquero (2005); Exum (2006); Sun and
Longazel (2008); Bossler and Holt (2010); are additional examples of literature that found
support for self-control theory.
Cretacci (2008) conducted a study that closely examined both the validity and
components that make up self-control theory. He argued that various measurement problems and
biased participant groups skewed the results over the past two decades. Additionally, he
suggested that past literature only showed that self-control theory explained some property and
drug-related crime and not violent crime (Cretacci, 2008).
18
Chapter 3. METHODS
19
Purpose of the study
The objective of this study is to gauge support for the death penalty among Penn State
undergraduates. Additionally, this research will seek to find if fear of crime and specific causal
attributes identified by Cullen and Unnever (2010) are predictors of support for capital
punishment. While there is significant empirical data on these topics, it is important to continue
to update the findings since there is evidence that death penalty opinions have not been static
over the past 40 years. It is also important to update the findings on death penalty opinions
because it is a key policy debate in the United States. Aside from the moral and ethical debate,
the death penalty process can cost millions of dollars when the appeals are factored in.
Another objective of this study is to identify key demographics with the goal in mind of
determining a typology of who supports the death penalty. Each year, Gallup polls paint a clear
picture of death opinions among numerous demographic categories. Previous literature does not
deviate much from the Gallup polls, therefore it is hypothesized that the findings in the present
study will not either.
Hypotheses
Based on empirical studies and Gallup polls, five hypotheses will be identified and tested.
There are several demographic categories and groups of special offenders that will be tested, but
the following hypotheses will be the primary focus.
H1: Capital punishment is supported based on previous literature and recent national polls.
H2: Fear of victimization is a predictor of favorable capital punishment opinions.
20
H3: Support for dispositional attributes is a predictor of strong support for capital punishment.
H4: Juveniles under 18 should be subject to capital punishment.
H5: The mentally ill, mentally retarded and mentally incompetent should not be subject to capital
punishment
Data Collection Method
Since this study will be centered on public opinions, the design that will be utilized is the
survey research method design. The method in which this questionnaire will be distributed to the
respondents is through a web-based survey using a program called Qualtrics. Data will be
collected from a random sample of 350 undergraduate students from all 20 Penn State campuses.
After approval was granted by the Institutional Review Board, the researcher contacted the
Student Services office located at the Penn State Harrisburg campus. The Director of Student
Services approved the proposal and granted the researcher access. Then, the director contacted
one of his analysts to pull a random sample of student email addresses. The analyst then
provided the researcher with 356 email addresses of undergraduate students attending all Penn
State campuses.
The survey will be redistributed to the participants who did not respond to the first
survey. This redistribution will take place two weeks after the investigator receives the responses
from the initial survey. Each respondent will be provided with an implied consent form
informing them of the study’s purpose, the approximate time it will take to complete the survey,
and most importantly, a statement of confidentiality ensuring them that no personally identifiable
21
information will be shared. Additionally, it will be made clear that participation is voluntary and
any question can be skipped.
Respondents will answer 23 questions about their opinions on the death penalty, fear of
crime, causal attributes and basic demographic characteristics. The two central questions in the
survey are the questions that ask for the respondent's position on capital punishment and their
position on whether the death penalty should apply to populations of special offenders identified
by Boots (2004). The purpose of the fear of crime and crime causation questions is to study the
mediating effect they have on death penalty attitudes. The specific crime causation questions
were selected because they focus on crime as a result of the environment and crime as a result of
the offender. Based on empirical literature, the researcher identified specific situational and
dispositional items that are empirically supported as causes of crime. The specific fear of crime
questions focus on the respondent's level of fear of being the victim of a crime. These questions
were formulated to ultimately identify if the individual's fear of crime resulted in more punitive
attitudes. The demographic section focuses only on four variables; gender, race, age and political
status. Certain demographics seen frequently in other studies such as socioeconomic and marital
status were excluded since the majority of college students are not established in their career
fields and are not married. All questions will be closed-ended, but there will be a section at the
end to write any additional thoughts or comments.
Independent variables
22
Previous death penalty literature examined numerous demographic variables. The present
study will focus on four demographic categories; gender, race, age, and political beliefs. Gender
will be a dichotomous variable (0, male; 1, female). The race variable will be coded for (1,
White; 2, Black/African-American; 3, Hispanic; 4, other). Political belief system will be
measured on a six-point scale (1, Conservative; 2, Moderate conservative; 3, Liberal; 4,
Moderate Liberal; 5, Independent; 6, other). Respondent’s age will be asked in an open-ended
format. Additionally, respondents will be asked which Penn State campus they attend, the current
year they are in, and their current grade point average.
The fear of crime variable will be measured based on the model used by Sims and
Johnston (2004). Respondents will be asked how afraid they are of being victimized by a
stranger (1, not at all worried; 2, somewhat worried; 3, very worried). Fear of crime will also be
measured on a four point scale on how often the respondents worry about their home being
burglarized, and how often they worry about having personal property stolen from them through
the use of force (1, very frequently; 2, somewhat frequently; 3, seldom; 4, never). The final item
in this section measures how safe the individual is walking alone in their neighborhood at night
(1, very safe; 2, somewhat safe; 3, not safe at all).
Attribution items will be measured based on the model used by Cullen and Unnever
(2010). These items will be divided into two categories; situational and dispositional. All
questions will be asked on a five-point Likert scale (1, strongly agree; 2, agree; 3, disagree; 4,
strongly disagree; 5, uncertain). Based on Cullen and Unnever’s (2010) model, the survey
includes the following three items as measures of dispositional attribution style: “most offenders
23
commit crimes because they have little or no self control”; “most offenders commit crimes
because they have bad characters”; “most offenders commit crimes because they are too lazy to
find a lawful way out of a bad situation” There are four items used to measure situational
attribution style: “most offenders commit crimes because society offers them little opportunity to
get a job and make money”; “most offenders commit crimes because of outside influences (e.g.,
peer pressure, financial problems)”; “most offenders commit crimes as a way of coping with
poor living conditions (poverty, in-home violence)”; “most offenders commit crime because their
home lives as children were lacking love, discipline, and supervision.”
Death Penalty Support Measures
The dependent variables in this study will be support for capital punishment along with
support for capital punishment among populations of special offenders. Once the level of support
is known, the independent variables discussed above will be applied. Support for capital
punishment will be measured on a five-point scale: 1, strongly oppose; 2, moderately oppose; 3,
moderately support; 4, strongly support; 5, uncertain. Respondents will be asked their opinions
(1, yes; 2, no; 3, uncertain) on whether they would continue to support capital punishment if they
knew the offender would be given a true life sentence without the possibility of parole.
Respondents will answer yes/no to questions regarding support for capital punishment
among populations of special offenders. The categories of special offenders include; juveniles
under the age of 18, the mentally retarded, the mentally ill, the mentally incompetent (those who
do not understand the nature of their punishment any longer and/or are unable to assist in their
own defense) (Boots, 2004), and women.
24
Chapter 4. FINDINGS
25
TABLE 4.1
Respondents' Demographic Information (N=115)
Variable Frequency Percentage
Gender
Male 46 40.0
Female 69 60.0
Age
18-19 42 36.5
20 30 26.1
21-22 28 24.3
23 and over 14 12.1
Political Belief System
Conservative 52 45.2
Liberal 37 32.2
Independent 23 20.0
Current PSU campus
Penn State University Park 66 57.4
All other PSU campuses 49 42.6
Current year at PSU
First-Second 61 53.1
Third 29 25.2
Four years and over 24 21.1
GPA
2.0-2.9 22 19.1
3.0 and above 91 79.1
26
Surveys were sent out to 350 Penn State undergraduate students. Two weeks after the first
survey was distributed the same survey was sent out to the individuals who did not respond
initially. In total, the distributions produced 115 (33 percent) usable surveys. The race
demographic was removed due to an overwhelming rate of a single variable. Females (60
percent) made up the majority of the participants. There was a rather even distribution among
age groups but respondents ages 18-19 held a slight majority (36 percent). Consistent with these
findings is the participants reporting that they were either in their first or second year at Penn
State (53 percent). 52 students (45 percent) identified themselves as being conservative while
only 37 students were liberal. The question involving which Penn State campuses the students
attended was re-coded into two variables since the majority (57 percent) went to Penn State
University Park and the rest were spread out through all other campuses while only one, Penn
State York, exceeded ten. Finally, an overwhelming majority of students reported currently
having a GPA 3.0 or above (79 percent).
TABLE 4.2
Participants' Responses to Capital Punishment Questions (N=115)
Dependent Variable Frequency Percentage
Overall Support for Capital Punishment
Strongly oppose 10 8.7
Moderately oppose 22 19.1
Uncertain 18 15.7
Moderately support 48 41.7
Strongly support 17 14.8
27
Continued support for capital punishment if respondents' knew
convicted murders would be given a true life sentence
Yes 61 53.0
No 54 47.0
Support for capital punishment among special populations of offenders
Juveniles Under 18
Yes 26 22.6
No 89 77.4
The mentally retarded
Yes 17 14.8
No 98 85.2
The mentally ill
Yes 44 38.3
No 71 61.7
The mentally incompetent (those who do not understand the nature 32 27.8
FFof their punishment any longer and/or are unable to assist 83 72.2
SFin their own defense
The data showed that the majority of respondents support capital punishment on some
level. 56 percent expressed this support while only 27 percent showed opposition. 61
respondents (53 percent) said that they would continue to support capital punishment if they
knew the convicted murderer would be given a true life sentence.
Responses for the populations of special offenders were fairly consistent in that the
majority did not favor the death penalty for these individuals. The most unexpected finding was
28
that 77 percent opposed the death penalty for juveniles which is in direct contrast with one of the
studies primary hypothesis. The highest percentage of opposition was that for the mentally
retarded (85 percent), while the mentally incompetent saw 72 percent opposition. Perhaps the
most interesting finding was support for the mentally ill. Nearly 40 percent supported the death
penalty for these individuals which is 11 percent higher than any other category and almost 30
percent higher than support for the mentally retarded. This could be attributed to the recent
school shooting in Connecticut where the individual was believed to have some sort of mental
illness. Many other shootings and violent acts committed around the country have been carried
out by individuals with mental illness and judging by these results, these individuals are
receiving less sympathy from college students.
TABLE 4.3
Participants' Responses to Fear of Crime Questions (N=115)
Independent Variable Frequency Percentage
Respondents' level of fear of being victimized by a stranger
Not worried at all 44 38.3
Worried 70 60.9
How often respondents' worry about having their home burglarized
Somewhat frequently 23 20.0
Seldom 71 61.7
Never 20 17.4
29
How often respondents' worry about having something stolen from
them through the use of force
Somewhat frequently 15 13.0
Seldom 66 57.4
Never 33 28.7
How safe respondents' feel walking alone in their neighborhood
at night
Very safe 48 41.7
Somewhat safe 65 56.5
Overall, respondents level of fear regarding being the victim of a crime is moderately low
with one exception. Participants reported some level of worry (60 percent) of being victimized
by a stranger. This is a unique finding since it is inconsistent with the rest of the responses. When
asked how often they worry about having their home burglarized, only 23 respondents (20
percent) reported that they worry somewhat frequently. The majority answered (61 percent) that
they seldom worried about this issue. Respondents were worried to an even lesser degree (13
percent) about having something stolen from them through the use of force. Almost 30 percent
responded that they never worry about this variable. Additionally, a slight majority (56 percent)
reported feeling somewhat safe walking alone in their neighborhood at night.
30
TABLE 4.4
Participants' Responses to Crime Causation Questions (N=115)
Independent Variable Frequency Percentage
Dispositional Items
Most offenders commit crimes because they have
diilittle or no self control
Agree 30 26.1
Disagree 63 54.8
Uncertain 21 18.3
Most offenders commit crimes because they have bad characters
Agree 50 43.5
Disagree 31 27.0
Uncertain 33 28.7
Most offenders commit crimes because they are too lazy to
iiiifind a lawful way out of a bad situation
Agree 36 31.3
Disagree 49 42.6
Uncertain 28 24.3
Situational Items
Most offenders commit crimes because society offers them
imlittle opportunity to get a job
Agree 21 18.3
Disagree 79 68.7
Uncertain 14 12.2
Most offenders commit crimes because of outside influences
m(e.g., peer pressure, financial problems)
31
Agree 77 67.0
Disagree 24 20.9
Uncertain 13 11.3
Most offenders commit crimes as a way of coping with poor
iiliving conditions (poverty, in-home violence)
Agree 68 59.1
Disagree 21 18.3
Uncertain 25 21.7
Most offenders commit crime because their home
lives as children were lacking love, discipline, and supervision
Agree 72 62.6
Disagree 20 17.4
Uncertain 22 19.1
The findings in the dispositional items section varied. This section gauged the
respondents' feelings toward crime committed as a result of the offender. An interesting result
was that in all three questions around 20 percent of participants reported being uncertain about
their feelings of crime causation. Respondents agreed (43 percent) with item regarding the
offenders having bad characters more than any other in this section. The majority disagreed (55
percent) with the statement that offenders commit crime because they have little or no self
control. Respondents agreed significantly with the situational items with only one exception.
Nearly 70 percent disagreed that offenders commit crime because society offers them little
opportunity to get a job. Committing crime as a result of outside influences such as peer pressure
was the most supported variable in this section (67 percent). The other two variables in this
section regarding poor home life and poor living conditions as the causes of crime were
supported at around 60 percent. These results indicate that college students feel that the
environment contributes to crime more than characteristics of the individual.
32
TABLE 4.5
Participants' Responses to Capital Punishment Exoneration Questions
(N=115)
Independent Variable Frequency Percentage
Are you aware that death row inmates (convicted
murderers awaiting execution) have been found to be
wrongly accused and later exonerated?
Yes 86 74.8
No 28 24.3
Are you aware that some convicted murders sentenced
to death were exonerated posthumously?
Yes 72 62.6
No 42 36.5
The results in this section suggest that college students are quite aware of critical errors
made in the death penalty process. Respondents said that they were aware (75 percent) that death
row inmates have been found to wrongly accused and later exonerated. Additionally, 63 percent
of respondents said there were aware that convicted murderers sentenced to death were
exonerated posthumously.
33
TABLE 4.6
Chi Square Test of Significance: Capital Punishment Questions
Dependent Variable: Capital Punishment Opinions
Independent Variables Chi-Square
.002*__________________
.205___________________
.042*__________________
.103 ___
.845___________________
.664__________________
.389__________________
.890 ___
.774___________________
.894___________________
.757___________________
.413___________________
.423___________________
.523___________________
.335___________________
.134___________________
.739___________________
.936___________________
Gender______________________________________
Age_________________________________________
Political Belief System___________________________
Current PSU Campus _____
What year at PSU?_____________________________
How often do you worry about having your home burglarized?____
How often do you worry about being victimized?_____
How often do you worry about having property stolen?
How safe do you feel walking alone at night?________
Offenders commit crime due to lack of self control___
Offenders commit crime due to bad characters______
Offenders commit crime due to laziness____________
Offenders commit crime due to lack of opportunities__
Offenders commit crime due to outside influences____
Offenders commit crime to cope with poor living conditions
Offenders commit crime due to a poor childhood
Awareness that death row inmates have been
exonerated
Awareness that death row inmates have been
exonerated posthumously
34
A bivariate chi-square analysis was run to test the significance of the correlation between
independent an dependent variables. The overall capital punishment opinion question yielded
two significant variables: gender and political belief system. Twenty-three more females
responded to this question which made the distribution in terms of volume rather even. Overall,
however, 34 of 46 males supported capital punishment while only 31 of 69 females showed
support. This study revealed that the gender demographic is a significant variable and a predictor
of capital punishment opinions which is consistent with the literature that says men have harsher
attitudes than women.
The second significant correlation was between capital punishment opinions and political
belief system. Just over half of conservatives and independent's reported that they support capital
punishment while only 14 of 37 liberals showed support. There was a rather even distribution
between categories regarding opposition and uncertainty to capital punishment. Like the gender
variable, this finding support previous literature in that conservatives have more punitive
attitudes.
The fear of crime and crime causation section did not produce a single significant
variable in this table. The general trends were consistent with the literature in that those more
fearful of crime had harsher attitudes and those supported the dispositional items supported
capital punishment more than the those won favored the situational items. Still, the chi-square
analysis did not show significance so the primary hypothesis regarding fear of crime and crime
causation cannot be proven.
35
TABLE 4.7
Chi Square Test of Significance: Capital Punishment Questions for Juveniles
Dependent Variable: Capital Punishment Opinions for Juveniles
Independent Variables Chi-Square
Gender_______________________________________
Age ______
Political Belief System____________________________
Current PSU Campus ______
What year at PSU? ______
Overall Capital Punishment Opinion _____________
How often do you worry about being victimized?______
How often do you worry about your home being burglarized? _____
How often do you worry about having property stolen?
How safe do you feel walking alone at night? _____
Offenders commit crime due to lack of self control____
Offenders commit crime due to bad characters _____
Offenders commit crime due to laziness ______
Offenders commit crime due to lack of opportunities__
Offenders commit crime due to outside influences____
Offenders commit crime to cope with poor living conditions_______
Offenders commit crime due to a poor childhood______
Awareness that death row inmates have been
exonerated
Awareness that death row inmates have been
exonerated posthumously
.011*_________________________
.919__________________________
.156__________________________
.027*_________________________
.526______________ ____
.077__________________________
.442__________________________
.383__________________________
.05*__________________________
.482 ____
.064 ____
.269 ____
.114__________________________
.586__________________________
.182__________________________
.932__________________________
.658 ____
.147__________________________
.245__________________________
36
Similar to the overall capital punishment opinion table, the juvenile table produced
minimal significant variables. In this table, gender, current PSU campus, and the stolen property
item in the fear of crime section were significant. There was a rather even distribution across
both categories. Both males and females reported high levels of opposition regarding the
execution of juvenile offenders. This was in direct contrast with one of the primary hypotheses
since the support for capital punishment for juveniles was only one-third among males and under
20 percent for females.
This study was a disproportionate stratified sample so the majority of the respondents
went to Penn State University Park. 56 out of 66 students who went to University Park said they
did not support capital punishment for juveniles while only 33 of 49 students from all other PSU
campuses said they did not support it.
The fear of crime question How often do you worry about having something stolen
through the use of force showed significance as well. 66 people said they seldom worried about
having something stolen from them, by far the highest frequency in this set. Of these 66, 56 said
they do not support the execution of juveniles. There was a nearly even distribution of
respondents who supported the juvenile death penalty. Seven said they worried about having
something stolen through force somewhat frequently, ten said it was seldom and nine said they
never worried about it.
37
TABLE 4.8
Chi Square Test of Significance: Capital Punishment Questions for the
Mentally Retarded
Dependent Variable: Capital Punishment Opinions for the Mentally Retarded
Independent Variables Chi-Square
Gender_____ _______
Age _______
Political Belief System ___ _
Current PSU Campus ___ _
What year at PSU? ___ _
Overall Capital Punishment Opinion ___ _
How often do you worry about being victimized?___ _
How often do you worry about having your home burglarized?_
How often do you worry about having property stolen?__
How safe do you feel walking alone at night?_ _
Offenders commit crime due to lack of self control _
Offenders commit crime due to bad characters _
Offenders commit crime due to laziness _
Offenders commit crime due to lack of opportunities _
Offenders commit crime due to outside influences _
Offenders commit crime to cope with poor living conditions _
Offenders commit crime due to a poor childhood _
Awareness that death row inmates have been exonerated
Awareness that death row inmates have been exonerated
posthumously
.520___________________________
.665___________________________
.749 _____
.688 _____
.200 _____
.084 _____
.579 _____
.955 _____
.185 _____
.768 _____
.855 _____
.660 _____
.044*_______ _____
.473_ _____
.850 _____
.358 _____
.757 _____
.911 _____
.845 _____
38
The only significant variable in this table was the laziness attribute in the crime causation
section. 46 out of 49 who disagreed with the statement Offenders commit crime because they are
too lazy to find a lawful way out of a bad situation did not support capital punishment for the
mentally retarded. 26 out of 36 who agreed with this statement did not support the execution of
the mentally retarded. There was also a high number of respondents who reported that they were
uncertain about this issue. Of the 28 who were uncertain. 24 said that they did not support capital
punishment for the mentally retarded.
39
TABLE 4.9
Chi Square Test of Significance: Capital Punishment Questions for the
Mentally Ill
Dependent Variable: Capital Punishment Opinions for the Mentally Ill
Independent Variables Chi-Square
Gender ______
Age ______
Political Belief System ______
Current PSU Campus ______
What year at PSU? ______
Overall Capital Punishment Opinion ______
How often do you worry about being victimized?______
How often do you worry about having your home burglarized?_____
How often do you worry about having property stolen?
How safe do you feel walking alone at night? ______
Offenders commit crime due to lack of self control____
Offenders commit crime due to bad characters_______
Offenders commit crime due to laziness ______
Offenders commit crime due to lack of opportunities__
Offenders commit crime due to outside influences____
Offenders commit crime to cope with poor living conditions
Offenders commit crime due to a poor childhood_____
Awareness that death row inmates have been
exonerated
Awareness that death row inmates have been
exonerated posthumously
.583 _____
.373 _____
.488 _____
.207 _____
.312 _____
.000* _____
.852 _____
.462 _____
.493 _____
.187 _____
.562 _____
.705 _____
.269 _____
.838 _____
.108 _____
.320 _____
.764 _____
.729 _____
.050* _____
40
The capital punishment opinions for the mentally ill table yielded two significant results:
overall capital punishment opinions and the awareness that death row inmates have been
exonerated posthumously.
There was a fairly even distribution among the 71 individuals who opposed the execution
of mentally ill offenders. Of these 71, ten strongly opposed capital punishment, 20 moderately
opposed it, 12 were uncertain, 25 moderately supported it and only four showed strong support.
Not surprisingly, of the 44 who supported the execution of mentally ill offenders, 36 showed
some level of support for capital punishment overall.
The second significant variable in this table was the item involving awareness of
exonerations posthumously. There was an even split among respondents who supported the
execution of mentally ill offenders. 22 said they were aware that death row inmates have been
exonerated posthumously and 22 said they were not aware of this issue. 50 out of 71 who
opposed the execution of the mentally ill reported that they were aware while just under half, 20
of 42, who were unaware said they opposed.
41
TABLE 4.10
Chi Square Test of Significance: Capital Punishment Questions for the
Mentally Incompetent
Dependent Variable: Capital Punishment Opinions for the Mentally Incompetent
Independent Variables Chi-Square
Gender ______
Age ______
Political Belief System ______
Current PSU Campus ____________
What year at PSU? ______
Overall Capital Punishment Opinion ____________
How often do you worry about being victimized? ______
How often do you worry about having your home burglarized?
How often do you worry about having property stolen?______
How safe do you feel walking alone at night? _____
Offenders commit crime due to lack of self control _____
Offenders commit crime due to bad characters _____
Offenders commit crime due to laziness ______
Offenders commit crime due to lack of opportunities ______
Offenders commit crime due to outside influences ______
Offenders commit crime to cope with poor living conditions___
Offenders commit crime due to a poor childhood ______
Awareness that death row inmates have been exonerated_____
Awareness that death row inmates have been exonerated
posthumously
.932 ______
.379 ______
.671 ______
.566 ______
.748 ______
.006* ______
.922 ______
.925 ______
.336 ______
.040* ______
.403 ______
.825 ______
.318 ______
.179 ______
.012* ______
.213 ______
.854 ______
.821 ______
.820 ______
42
Three variables showed significance in the mentally incompetent table: overall capital
punishment opinions, feeling of safety walking alone at night and crime as a result of outside
influences.
Almost half (40) of the 83 respondents who said they opposed capital punishment for the
mentally incompetent supported capital punishment on some level. 25 of 32 who supported the
mentally incompetent death penalty also supported capital punishment in general.
The fear of crime item How safe do you feel walking alone at night in your neighborhood
also produced a significant correlation. Of the 83 who opposed capital punishment for the
mentally incompetent, 40 said they felt very safe walking alone at night in their neighborhood
while 41 said they felt somewhat safe. Eight of the 32 who supported capital punishment for
these special offenders said they felt very safe walking alone while 24 said they only felt
somewhat safe.
The final significant variable in this table was the situational item involving the offender
committing crime as a result of outside influences such as peer pressure. 60 people who agreed
with this statement opposed executing the mentally incompetent whereas only 11 disagreed. The
remaining 11 said that they were uncertain on the matter. The distribution for support in this
category was much more even. 17 who agreed with the crime causation statement support
execution as opposed to the 13 who disagreed.
43
Chapter 5: CONCLUSION
44
Two of the five primary hypotheses were supported by the responses provided by the
study's participants. One of the primary hypotheses was not supported while there could not be a
determination made on the final two. The first hypotheses was supported by the data that capital
punishment would be supported. The majority of respondents reported a moderate level of
support which also runs parallel to the literature in that people do not have as strong of opinions
on the issue as before. All together, just over half said they supported capital punishment on
some level which indicates a continuing downward trend on favorable death penalty opinions.
The second supported hypotheses was that respondents would not support the death penalty for
the mentally retarded, mentally ill, and mentally incompetent. Support for the death penalty for
the mentally retarded and mentally ill was extremely low while support for the mentally ill was
the highest among the categories of special offenders but still went under half. It can be
speculated that college students have less sympathy for these mentally ill individuals in light of
the recent acts of violence carried out by offenders who have some sort of mental illness.
Perhaps the most surprising finding in this study was the low support for the juvenile
death penalty. Only the mentally retarded received a lower frequency of favorable opinions. The
hypothesis was that the respondents would support capital punishment for juveniles. It is difficult
to determine why support was extremely low for the juvenile death penalty. A possible theory is
that the college students who filled out the surveys have grown accustomed to living on or near
Penn State campuses which does not produce the kind of violence from juveniles that an inner-
city area might. Had these surveys been sent to students attending colleges in the cities of
Pittsburgh and Philadelphia there may have been more support due to the nature of the region.
45
The fear of crime and causes of crime hypotheses could not be determined due to the lack
of significant results on the chi-square tables. Some of the tables have one or two significant
results but there is not enough to support or reject these two primary hypotheses.
The capital punishment opinions questions and the fear of crime questions were
consistent with the previously discussed literature. The downward trend in favorable support is
reflected by the data in this study. Also, there is minimal support with the special offenders
categories which is consistent with the most recent Gallup poll. Outside of the unexpected
outcome on the juvenile response, this result is to be expected. Support for capital punishment is
decreasing so naturally support for individuals with some sort of mental issue would be
significantly lower. In addition, respondents reported that they were not fearful of crime. The
mediating effect this fear of crime had on death penalty attitudes could not be determined,
however.
An interesting finding that is at odds with the literature is the respondents' beliefs
regarding crime causation. This study produced results supporting the situational items.
Respondents felt that issues that lay outside one's character, such as peer pressure or poor home
life, result in crime. Support for these causes of crime were high, just over a two-thirds majority
in some of the situational items. Contrary to the literature the support for crime as a result of the
individual character was low. Two of the three items in this section were not supported by one-
third of the participants. Finally, the awareness items were somewhat surprising. A high volume
of respondents indicated that they were aware of exonerations while on death row and
posthumously. Exonerations, more often than not, have not been news stories that sweep the
46
nation. Also, it can be speculated that the work done by the Innocence Project usually does not
find its ways in the conversations of most college students. Therefore the high rate of awareness
on these issues was rather unexpected.
A few limitations became evident during the course of conducting this study. First, just
under one-third of the target population participated in the survey. For the most part, the 115
usable surveys produced reasonable distributions and likely a representative population but it
would have been adequate to receive closer to half of the 350 targeted subjects. A second
limitation is the lack of significant results in the fear of crime and causes of crime section. The
title of this is after all, Predicting support for capital punishment: the role of causal attributes,
fear of crime, and demographic characteristics. It was outlined in the methods section that a key
element of this study was to examine the mediating effect fear of crime and crime causation had
on capital punishment opinions. The study was limited in this regard due to the fact that so few
significant results were produced, including none on the overall capital punishment opinion
table. One explanation for this could be the idea that these particular fear of crime and crime
causation variables are not thought about in conjunction with the death penalty. Many of the
studies discussed in the literature review involved fear of crime and its relation to punitive
attitudes rather than capital punishment. Based off these findings, it stands to reason that college
students do not connect several of the study's independent variables with their opinion on the
death penalty.
Further research is needed in various areas related to this study. First, it is important to
keep asking college students their opinions on the death penalty since, as discussed in the
47
introduction, they will be the ones making decisions on this issue in the years to come. Deciding
on whether or not to execute offenders is a serious issue and many problems could arise if the
general public shows opposition. Additionally, further research is needed in the area of special
offender categories. Most researchers tend to focus on demographics in relation to death penalty
opinions, overall support, and the mediating effect on issues such as fear of crime. These
categories of special offenders is relevant since a large number of convicted murderers are either
juveniles or have mental disorders.
48
Appendix A: Questionnaire
Predicting Support for Capital Punishment: the role of causal
attributes, fear of crime, and demographic characteristics.
The following questions are asked for statistical purposes only.
Demographics:
(1) Race-(1-White, 2-Black/African-American, 3-Hispanic, 4-Other)
(2) Gender-(0-Male, 1-Female)
(3) What is your age? _______
(4) Which of the following descriptions BEST describes your political belief system?
1 = Conservative
2 = Moderate Conservative
3 = Liberal
4 = Moderate Liberal
5 = Independent
6 = Other: Please specify _________________
(5) What PSU campus do you currently attend?
1= Penn State Abington
2= Penn State Altoona
3= Penn State Beaver
4= Penn State Berks
5= Penn State Brandywine
6= Penn State DuBois
7=Penn State Erie, The Behrend College
8=Penn State Fayette, The Eberly Campus
9=Penn State Greater Allegheny
10=Penn State Harrisburg
49
11=Penn State Hazleton
12=Penn State Lehigh Valley
13=Penn State Mont Alto
14=Penn State New Kensington
15=Penn State Schuylkill
16=Penn State Shenango
17=Penn State University Park
18=Penn State Wilkes-Barre
19=Penn State Worthington Scranton
20=Penn State York
(6) What year are you currently in at PSU?
1 = First
2 = Second
3 = Third
4 = Fourth
5 = Over four years
(7) What is your current GPA? ________
Capital Punishment Opinions
(8) What is your position on capital punishment? Choose one
1= Strongly oppose, 2=Moderately oppose, 3=Moderately support, 4=Strongly support, or 5=
Uncertain
(9) Would you continue to support capital punishment if you knew convicted murderers would
be given a true life sentence without the possibility of parole? Choose one
1 =Yes, 2=No, 3=Uncertain
Capital Punishment Attitudes for “Populations of Special Offenders”
(10) Do you support capital punishment for:
50
Juveniles under the age of 18. 1=Yes, 2=No
The mentally retarded. 1=Yes, 2=No
The mentally ill. 1=Yes 2=No
The mentally incompetent (those who do not understand the nature of their punishment any
longer and/or are unable to assist in their own defense). 1=Yes, 2=No
Fear of crime
(11) How worried are you about being victimized by a stranger? Choose one
1=not at all worried, 2=somewhat worried, 3=very worried
(12) How often do you worry about having your home burglarized? Choose one
1=very frequently, 2=somewhat frequently, 3=seldom, 4=never
(13) How often do you worry about having something stolen from you through the use of
force? Choose one
1=very frequently, 2=somewhat frequently, 3=seldom, 4=never
(14) How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood at night? Choose one
1=very safe, 2=somewhat safe, 3=not safe at all
Causes of Crime
Dispositional Items:
(15) Most offenders commit crimes because they have little or no self control. Choose one
1= strongly agree, 2= agree, 3=disagree, 4= strongly disagree, 5= uncertain.
(16) Most offenders commit crimes because they have bad characters. Choose one
1= strongly agree, 2= agree, 3=disagree, 4= strongly disagree, 5= uncertain.
(17) Most offenders commit crimes because they are too lazy to find a lawful way out of a bad
situation. Choose one.
1= strongly agree, 2= agree, 3=disagree, 4= strongly disagree, 5= uncertain.
51
Situational Items
(18) Most offenders commit crimes because society offers them little opportunity to get a job and
make money. Choose one
1= strongly agree, 2= agree, 3=disagree, 4= strongly disagree, 5= uncertain.
(19) Most offenders commit crimes because of outside influences (e.g., peer pressure, financial
problems). Choose one
1= strongly agree, 2= agree, 3=disagree, 4= strongly disagree, 5= uncertain.
(20) Most offenders commit crimes as a way of coping with poor living conditions (poverty, in-
home violence). Choose one
1= strongly agree, 2= agree, 3=disagree, 4= strongly disagree, 5= uncertain.
(21) Most offenders commit crime because their home lives as children were lacking love,
discipline, and supervision. Choose one
1= strongly agree, 2= agree, 3=disagree, 4= strongly disagree, 5= uncertain.
Additional Items
(22) Are you aware that death row inmates (convicted murderers awaiting execution) have been
found to be wrongly accused and later exonerated?
1=Yes, 2=No
(23) Are you aware that some convicted murderers sentenced to death were exonerated
posthumously?
1=Yes, 2=No
Additional Comments: List any additional comments, thoughts, or ideas you may have about
capital punishment, the death penalty system, or any other component relating to items on this
survey.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
52
Appendix B: Significant Chi-Square Tables
Capital Punishment Opinions
Gender
Political Belief System
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
16.719a
17.984
5.664
115
4
4
1
.002
.001
.017
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided
Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ration
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases
32.170a
33.147
.927
115
20
20
1
.042
.033
.336
53
Capital Punishment Opinions: Juveniles
Gender
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 6.494a 1 .011
Likelihood Ratio 6.390 1 .011
Linear-by-Linear Association 6.437 1 .011
N of Valid Cases 115
Current PSU Campus
How often do you about property being stolen from you through the use of force?
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 7.762a 3 .050
Likelihood Ratio 7.392 3 .060
Linear-by-Linear Association .298 1 .585
N of Valid Cases 115
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.923a 1 .027
Likelihood Ratio 4.887 1 .027
Linear-by-Linear Association 4.880 1 .027
N of Valid Cases 115
54
Capital Punishment Opinions: The Mentally Retarded
Offenders commit crime because they are too lazy to find a lawful way out of a bad situation.
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 8.096a 3 .044
Likelihood Ratio 8.273 3 .041
Linear-by-Linear Association .372 1 .542
N of Valid Cases 115
Capital Punishment Opinions: The Mentally Ill
Overall Capital Punishment Opinion
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 26.708a 4 .000
Likelihood Ratio 31.698 4 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 25.693 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 115
Awareness the convicted murderers have been exonerated posthumously.
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.974a 2 .050
Likelihood Ratio 6.264 2 .044
Linear-by-Linear Association .601 1 .438
N of Valid Cases 115
55
Capital Punishment Opinions: The Mentally Incompetent
Overall Capital Punishment Opinion
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 14.404a 4 .006
Likelihood Ratio 16.258 4 .003
Linear-by-Linear Association 11.876 1 .001
N of Valid Cases 115
How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood at night?
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 6.426a 2 .040
Likelihood Ratio 7.135 2 .028
Linear-by-Linear Association .762 1 .383
N of Valid Cases 115
Offenders commit crime because of outside influences.
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 10.946a 3 .012
Likelihood Ratio 10.438 3 .015
Linear-by-Linear Association .356 1 .551
N of Valid Cases 115
56
Bibliography
57
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency.
fefeCriminology, 30, 47–87.
Agnew, R., Brezina, T., Wright, J. P., & Cullen, F. (2002). Strain, personality traits, and
fefedelinquency: Extending general strain theory. Criminology, 40, 43–72.
Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Los Angeles:
fefeRoxbury.
Alvarez-Rivera, L. L., & Fox, K. (2010). Institutional attachments and self-control:
fefeUnderstanding deviance among Hispanic adolescents. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38,
fefe666−674.
Baker, D. N., Lambert, E. G., & Jenkins, M. M. (2005). Racial differences in death penalty
fefesupport and opposition: A preliminary study of white and black college students. Journal Of
fefeBlack Studies, 35(4), 201-224.
Blackwell, B. S., & Piquero, A. R. (2005). On the relationships between gender, power control,
fefeself-control, and crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 1−17.
Bohm, R. M. (1990). Death Penalty Opinions: A Classroom Experience and Public
fefeCommitment. Sociological Inquiry, 60(3), 285-297.
Boots, D., Heide, K. M., & Cochran, J. K. (2004). Death penalty support for special offender
fefepopulations of legally convicted murderers: juveniles, the mentally retarded, and the
efefmentally incompetent. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 22(2), 223-238.
Bossler, A. M., & Holt, T. J. (2010). The effect of self-control on victimization in the cyber-
fefeworld. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 227−236.
Campbell, A. A., & Muncer, S. S. (1990). Causes of crime. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 17(4),
fefe410.
Carroll, J. S., & Payne, J. W. (1977). Crime seriousness, recidivism risk, and causal attributions
fefein judgments of prison term by students and experts.
Cochran, J. K., & Sanders, B. A. (2009). The gender gap in death penalty support: An
fefeexploratory study. Journal Of Criminal Justice, 37(6), 525-533.
fefedoi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.09.001
Cretacci, M. A. (2008). A general test of self-control theory: Has its importance been
fefeexaggerated? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
fefe52(5), 538-553.
58
Cullen, F. T., Clark, G. A., Cullen, J. B., & Mathers, R. A. (1985). Attribution, salience, and
fefeattitudes toward criminal sanctioning. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12(3), 305-331.
Davis-Teresa-L, Severy-Lawrence-J, Kraus-Stephen-J, & et, a. l. (1993). Predictors of
fefesentencing decisions: the beliefs, personality variables, and demographic factors of juvenile
fefejustice personnel. Journal Of Applied Social Psychology, 23(6), 451-477.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Gross, S. R. (1994). Hardening of the Attitudes: Americans' Views on the
fefeDeath Penalty. Journal of Social Issues, 50(2), 19-52.
Exum, M. L. (2006). Alcohol and aggression: An integration of findings from experimental
fefestudies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 131−145.
Fattah, E. A. (1979). Perceptions of violence, concern about crime, fear of victimization and
fefeattitudes to the death penalty. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 21, 22-38.
Ferraro K (1995) Fear of Crime: Interpreting Victimization Risk. Albany, NY: State University
fefeof New York Press.
Flexon, J. L., Stolzenberg, L., & D’Alessio, S. J. (2011). Cheating the Hangman: The Effect of
fefethe Roper v. Simmons Decision on Homicides Committed by Juveniles. Crime &
fefeDelinquency, 57(6), 928-949.
Foerschner, Allison (2010). Should All Convicted Criminals Who Are Legally Declared To Be
fefeMentally Retarded Be Excused From the Death Penalty? Student Pulse: Online Academic
fefeJournal. 1-4.
Furby, L., & Beyth-Marom, R. (1992). Risk taking in adolescence: A decision making
fefeperspective. Developmental Review, 12, 1-44.
Gallup Poll 2011. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx
Grasmick HG and McGill AL (1994) Religion, attribution style, and punitiveness toward
fefejuvenile offenders. Criminology 32(1): 23–46.
Gross, S. R. (1998). Update: American public opinion on the death penalty—It’s getting
fefepersonal. Cornell Law Review, 83, 1448–1475
Harris Poll (2003) Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/1041
Hoffman, J. P., & Cerbone, F. G. (1999). Stressful life events and delinquency escalation in early
fefeadolescence. Criminology, 37, 343–374.
Innocence Project (2012). Retrieved from http://www.innocenceproject.org/.
59
Keil, T. J., & Vito, G. F. (1991). Fear of crime and attitudes toward capital punishment: A
fefestructural equations model. Justice Quarterly : JQ, 8(4), 447-464.
Klama, E. K., & Egan, V. (2011). The big-five, sense of control, mental health and fear of crime
fefeas contributory factors to attitudes towards punishment. Personality and Individual
fefeDifferences, 51(5), 613-617.
Lambert, E. G., Camp, S. D., Clarke, A., & Shanhe, J. (2011). The Impact of Information on
fefeDeath Penalty Support, Revisited. Crime & Delinquency, 57(4), 572-599.
fefedoi:10.1177/0011128707312147
Mental Health America (2009). Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/mental-
illness-and-death-penalty-0.
Montaldo, Charles. (2006). Andrea Yates not guilty by reason of insanity. Retrieved from
http://crime.about.com/b/2006/07/26/andrea-yates-not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity.htm.
Moon, B., Blurton, D., & McCluskey, J. D. (2008). General strain theory and delinquency:
Focusing on the influences of key strain characteristics on delinquency. Crime & Delinquency,
fefe54, 582–613.
Pilkington, Ed. (2012). Florida inmate found fit to be executed despite history of mental illness.
The Guardian.
Rennie, Y. (1978). The search for the criminal man: A conceptual history of the dangerous
fefeoffender. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Sacco, Vincent F. (1995). "Media Constructions of Crime." The Annals of the American
fefeAcademy of Political and Social Science 539: 141-154.
Seltzer, R., & McCormick,Joseph P.,,II. (1987). The impact of crime victimization and fear of
fefecrime on attitudes toward death penalty defendants. Violence and Victims, 2(2), 99-114.
Sims, B., & Johnston, E. (2004). Examining Public Opinion about Crime and Justice: A
fefeStatewide Study. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 15(3), 270-293.
Steinberg, L., & Scott, E. S. (2003). Less guilty by reason of adolescence: Developmental
fefeimmaturity, diminished responsibility and the juvenile death penalty. American Psychologist,
fefe58, 1009-1018.
Streib, V. L. (2004). The juvenile death penalty today: Death sentences and executions for
fefejuvenile crimes, January 1, 1973-April 30, 2004
Sun, I. Y., & Longazel, J. G. (2008). College students’ alcohol-related problems: A test of
fefecompeting theories. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 554−562.
60
Surette, Ray. (1996). "News from Nowhere, Policy to Follow: Media and the Social Construction
fefeof Three Strikes and You're Out'." In Three Strikes and You're Out: Vengeance as Public
fefePolicy.
Thomas, C. W., & Foster, S. C. (1973). A sociological perspective on public support for capital
fefepunishment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, 641-657.
Thomas-Charles-W. (1977). Eighth amendment challenges to the death penalty: the relevance of
fefeinformed public opinion. Vanderbilt Law Review, 30(5), 1005-1030.
Tyler, T. T., and Weber, R. (1982). Support for the death penalty: Instrumental response to
fefecrime, or symbolic attitude? Law and Society Review, 17, 21-45.
Tyler T and Boeckmann R (1997) Three strikes and you are out, but why? Law and
fefeSociety Review 31(2): 237–266.
Unnever, J. D., Cullen, F. T., & Roberts, J. V. (2005). NOT EVERYONE STRONGLY
fefeSUPPORTS THE DEATH PENALTY: Assessing Weakly-Held Attitudes about Capital
fefePunishment. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(2), 187-216.
Unnever, J. D., Cochran, J. K., Cullen, F. T., & Applegate, B. K. (2010). The Pragmatic
fefeAmerican: Attributions of Crime and the Hydraulic Relation Hypothesis. JQ: Justice
fefeQuarterly, 27(3), 431-457.
Vollum, S., Longmire, D. R., & Buffington-Vollum, J. (2004). CONFIDENCE IN THE DEATH
fefePENALTY AND SUPPORT FOR ITS USE: EXPLORING THE VALUE-EXPRESSIVE
fefeDIMENSION OF DEATH PENALTY ATTITUDES. JQ: Justice Quarterly, 21(3), 521-546.
Warr, Mark. 1995. "Poll Trends: Public Opinion on Crime and Punishment." Public Opinion
fefeQuarterly 59:296-310.
Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
Furman v. Georgia (1972)
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
Roper v. Simmons (2005)
Stanford v. Kentucky (1988)