/
Deadly  Justice,  Ch   13 Deadly  Justice,  Ch   13

Deadly Justice, Ch 13 - PowerPoint Presentation

Dollface
Dollface . @Dollface
Follow
342 views
Uploaded On 2022-07-28

Deadly Justice, Ch 13 - PPT Presentation

Public Opinion Feb 28 2022 Baumgartner POLI 203 Spring 2022 1 Quiz results still strong Quizzes so far Correlations among the quiz scores 24 to 48 so those who do well on one quiz are not always the same people who do well on the others only moderately so ID: 931363

203 poli baumgartner spring poli 203 spring baumgartner 2022 death opinion public time crime penalty states state people support

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Deadly Justice, Ch 13" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Deadly Justice, Ch 13Public Opinion

Feb 28, 2022

Baumgartner, POLI 203, Spring 2022

1

Slide2

Quiz results still strongQuizzes so far

Correlations among the quiz scores: .24 to .48, so those who do well on one quiz are not always the same people who do well on the others, only moderately so.27 people have perfect scores, congratulations!Median score: 36 / 40.

Details on Quiz 4: Same as usual, 8.78

Baumgartner, POLI 203, Spring 2022

2

Slide3

One correction from last timeSell v. United States (2003): States may NOT forcibly medicate an individual solely for the purpose of making them competent for execution.

I said the opposite several times in lecture last week, and that confused many of you (those who did the readings!)A confusing trajectory by the Court:Perry v. Louisiana (1990): states may not execute those rendered competent solely by medical treatment, BUT:Washington v. Harper (1990): states MAY forcibly medicate, even against the person’s will.

Riggins v. Nevada (1992): Defendants at trial may be forcibly medicated while on trial.Baumgartner, POLI 203, Spring 2022

3

Slide4

Current status, and the general paradoxSell v. US (2003): States may NOT forcibly medicate SOLELY for the purpose of rendering someone competent.

This is kind of like Brady v. Maryland: States may not exclude people from jury service SOLELY on the basis of their race. (But you have to catch the DA putting that racist logic in print, or saying it in court.)I’m pretty sure it does happen. States just can say that is what they are doing, or they must come up with a second reason why they are doing it.

Baumgartner, POLI 203, Spring 2022

4

Slide5

Another distinction from last timeThe Court is interested in your state of mind at 3 different moments:Time of crime: Did you know what you were doing, at the time of the crime? Influence of others, intoxication, mental status at the time of the crime, and other similar factors can be a

mitigator, or even an element in reducing the crime from 1st degree to a lower degree, or the plea down to NGRI (Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity)Time of trial:

Are you competent to stand trial and assist in your own defense? Trials may be delayed for this reason. You await in jail.Time of execution: Are you competent to understand that the state is putting you to death, and why (as a punishment for a crime)

Baumgartner, POLI 203, Spring 2022

5

Slide6

Let’s review the slides from last time we did not get toThese slides should reinforce the idea that mental illness is absolutely endemic among those executed, and by extension probably is among those on death row as well.

Also, it’s very clear the US courts do not know quite how to handle this fact.NGRI very rareCrimes can be terrible, people want the guilty to be punishedProbably more likely that those with illnesses are over-punished rather than under-punished, on average…

Baumgartner, POLI 203, Spring 2022

6

Slide7

Public OpinionSimple question: What SHOULD BE the relation between public opinion and use of the death penalty?

While public opinion is moving away from the death penalty, it’s easy for opponents of the death penalty to say the state should do so as well. However, it could work the other way as well. In fact, it did work the other way during the period of 1972 to about the mid-1990s.Similarly, what if voters / citizens in Robeson County support the death penalty more than those in Guilford or Orange County? How does that square with “equal protection of the law”?

Baumgartner, POLI 203, Spring 2022

7

Slide8

Political science / representation studiesOur entire profession is focused, to a large part, on assessing the degree to which democratic governments respond to public opinion.

But there is another side to representative government: protecting the actions of the government from being taken over by prejudice, anger, “passion”Protection of minorities, of foreigners, of the marginalized is often unpopular.This might be nowhere as common as in criminal justice: Every effort to enforce constitutional protections of due process and the rights of the accused has been unpopular. So we have to struggle in this class with what SHOULD be the role of public opinion in an area where people are accused of very serious crimes…

Baumgartner, POLI 203, Spring 2022

8

Slide9

See the Gallup web sitehttps://news.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx

BTW, on the first day of class I asked you all these questions. Your results compare to the Gallup results are on the class web site, Week 1.Big news from Gallup, when choosing from Death or LWOP, 2019 showed a 60-36 preference for LWOP, first time so strong.

Baumgartner, POLI 203, Spring 2022

9

Slide10

Question wording mattersHigher support:Generic questionSpecific individuals such as Saddam Hussein, Timothy McVeigh,

UnabomberLower support:DP v. LWOP v. possibility of paroleYoung defendantFelony murder cases / accomplice to the crime (very low support)

Also note: death penalty is very rare. And people not supporting the death penalty can’t be on the jury. So there is something different from answering the generic Gallup Poll question and voting for death.

Baumgartner, POLI 203, Spring 2022

10

Slide11

Baumgartner, POLI 203, Spring 2022

11

Slide12

Baumgartner, POLI 203, Spring 202212

Slide13

Baumgartner, POLI 203, Spring 202213

Slide14

A summary of public opinion595 public opinion surveys with national samples, 1936 to present

147 questions were asked only once; we throw those out.448 questions: Same wording, same company / survey organization65 different questionsGallup “murder” is the most common question: 43 times

NORC “murder” 30 times; Gallup “morally acceptable” 21 times, etc.Dyad-ratios algorithm, compares movement over time across two or more observations with the same question, generates a weighted moving average of the results. (UNC Prof. Jim Stimson gets credit!)Good: Uses all the possible information.Bad: You can’t interpret the number other than to see if it’s going up or down.

Baumgartner, POLI 203, Spring 2022

14

Slide15

Let’s look at that index again, 1953 to presentThree periods: 1. Before 19652. To 1996

3. After 1996

Baumgartner, POLI 203, Spring 2022

15

Slide16

Public opinion almost perfectly predicts the annual number of death sentences

Baumgartner, POLI 203, Spring 2022

16

Slide17

Death Penalty and general punitiveness

Peter Enns, Incarceration Nation

, used the same method to measure public support for harsher v. less harsh criminal justice policies. It correlates very closely with death penalty opinion.So there is something general about the 1980s and 1990s and crime. It has changed since then.

Baumgartner, POLI 203, Spring 2022

17

Slide18

State by state variation: no impact, huh?!State by state

Regions of Texas. Houston not the highest.

Baumgartner, POLI 203, Spring 2022

18

Slide19

An opinion paradoxGenerally pretty high levels of support, in the abstractBut very low levels of actual use

Political leaders have felt the power of public opinion on thisSince the mid-1990s, significant declines in supportLWOP is availableCrime rates have droppedConcerns about innocence / exonerations

Several states have abolished, through LEGISLATIVE action, and the politicians did not get booted out.So some big shifts in the last 20 years, as compared to the earlier period

Baumgartner, POLI 203, Spring 2022

19

Slide20

Some data for North Carolina, mirroring national trends. Is this a problem?What if your crime was in 1993?

You’d have about a 3-4 percent chance of death.If the crime was after 2000, you’d have less than a 1 percent chance of death.

Death sentences per 100 homicidesBaumgartner, POLI 203, Spring 2022

20

Slide21

Evolving standards of decencyWe do expect that the justice system will evolve over time.Various improvements / safeguards have been added to the system over time…

Does that mean that those sentenced to death in earlier periods should have their sentences reversed? Should reforms be retroactive?If they were retroactive, they might not make it through the legislature… So many contradictions and puzzles here…

Baumgartner, POLI 203, Spring 202221