PREDICTING SUPPORT FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: THE ROLE …

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


Joongyeup Lee


James Ruiz


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


Mentally Ill................................................................................................................39


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)


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)


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


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


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 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 to cope with poor living conditions_______

Offenders commit crime due to a poor childhood______


exonerated



.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


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


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


Mentally Ill

Dependent Variable: Capital Punishment Opinions for the Mentally Ill


Gender ______

Age ______

Political Belief System ______

Current PSU Campus ______


Overall Capital Punishment Opinion ______

How often do you worry about being victimized?______

How often do you worry about having your home burglarized?_____


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 to cope with poor living conditions

Offenders commit crime due to a poor childhood_____


exonerated



.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


Mentally Incompetent

Dependent Variable: Capital Punishment Opinions for the Mentally Incompetent


Gender ______

Age ______

Political Belief System ______

Current PSU Campus ____________


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 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_____


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

http://www.abington.psu.edu/

http://www.altoona.psu.edu/

http://www.br.psu.edu/

http://www.bk.psu.edu/

http://brandywine.psu.edu/

http://www.ds.psu.edu/

http://www.erie.psu.edu/

http://www.fe.psu.edu/

http://www.ga.psu.edu/

http://www.hbg.psu.edu/

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:

http://www.hn.psu.edu/

http://www.lv.psu.edu/

http://www.ma.psu.edu/

http://www.nk.psu.edu/

http://www.sl.psu.edu/

http://www.shenango.psu.edu/

http://www.wb.psu.edu/

http://www.sn.psu.edu/

http://www.yk.psu.edu/

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


(17) Most offenders commit crimes because they are too lazy to find a lawful way out of a bad

situation. Choose one.


51

Situational Items

(18) Most offenders commit crimes because society offers them little opportunity to get a job and

make money. Choose one


(19) Most offenders commit crimes because of outside influences (e.g., peer pressure, financial

problems). Choose one


(20) Most offenders commit crimes as a way of coping with poor living conditions (poverty, in-

home violence). Choose one


(21) Most offenders commit crime because their home lives as children were lacking love,

discipline, and supervision. Choose one


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?


sided)



Linear-by-Linear Association .298 1 .585



sided)





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.


sided)





Capital Punishment Opinions: The Mentally Ill

Overall Capital Punishment Opinion


sided)





Awareness the convicted murderers have been exonerated posthumously.


sided)





55

Capital Punishment Opinions: The Mentally Incompetent

Overall Capital Punishment Opinion


sided)





How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood at night?


sided)





Offenders commit crime because of outside influences.


sided)





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/.

http://www.studentpulse.com/authors/250/allison-m-foerschner

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx

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)

PREDICTING SUPPORT FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: THE ROLE …

Documents

Transcript of PREDICTING SUPPORT FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: THE ROLE …