Benefits and Risks of Using “Diminished Capacity” Mitigation in Death Penalty Proceedings

Beth E. Bjerregaard; M. Dwayne Smith; Sondra J. Fogel

doi:10.1016/S0196-1152(05)12006-7

Benefits and Risks of Using “Diminished Capacity” Mitigation in Death Penalty Proceedings

Beth E. Bjerregaard, M. Dwayne Smith, Sondra J. Fogel

University of South Florida

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter

Abstract

A sample of capital trials in North Carolina was analyzed to determine the impact on death sentencing of introducing mitigators related to diminished capacity on behalf of defendants. The results show that mitigators of this type were frequently submitted to the jury for consideration, and if accepted, the chances of a defendant being sentenced to death were diminished. However, when these mitigators were submitted but not accepted, the defendant's likelihood of receiving a death sentence was substantially escalated. These findings suggest a need for attorneys to carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of presenting diminished capacity mitigators in capital trials, and if choosing to do so, the absolute necessity of convincing the jury of their validity.

Original language	American English
Title of host publication	The Organizational Response to Persons with Mental Illness Involved with the Criminal Justice System
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-1152(05)12006-7
State	Published - Jan 1 2005

Disciplines

Social and Behavioral Sciences
Social Work

Access to Document

10.1016/S0196-1152(05)12006-7License: CC BY

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-1152(05)12006-7

Cite this

@inbook{c72ee254e2814252b4186c19c29f9fda,

title = "Benefits and Risks of Using “Diminished Capacity” Mitigation in Death Penalty Proceedings",

abstract = " A sample of capital trials in North Carolina was analyzed to determine the impact on death sentencing of introducing mitigators related to diminished capacity on behalf of defendants. The results show that mitigators of this type were frequently submitted to the jury for consideration, and if accepted, the chances of a defendant being sentenced to death were diminished. However, when these mitigators were submitted but not accepted, the defendant's likelihood of receiving a death sentence was substantially escalated. These findings suggest a need for attorneys to carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of presenting diminished capacity mitigators in capital trials, and if choosing to do so, the absolute necessity of convincing the jury of their validity.",

author = "Bjerregaard, {Beth E.} and Smith, {M. Dwayne} and Fogel, {Sondra J.}",

year = "2005",

month = jan,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/S0196-1152(05)12006-7",

language = "American English",

booktitle = "The Organizational Response to Persons with Mental Illness Involved with the Criminal Justice System",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Benefits and Risks of Using “Diminished Capacity” Mitigation in Death Penalty Proceedings

AU - Bjerregaard, Beth E.

AU - Smith, M. Dwayne

AU - Fogel, Sondra J.

PY - 2005/1/1

Y1 - 2005/1/1

N2 - A sample of capital trials in North Carolina was analyzed to determine the impact on death sentencing of introducing mitigators related to diminished capacity on behalf of defendants. The results show that mitigators of this type were frequently submitted to the jury for consideration, and if accepted, the chances of a defendant being sentenced to death were diminished. However, when these mitigators were submitted but not accepted, the defendant's likelihood of receiving a death sentence was substantially escalated. These findings suggest a need for attorneys to carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of presenting diminished capacity mitigators in capital trials, and if choosing to do so, the absolute necessity of convincing the jury of their validity.

AB - A sample of capital trials in North Carolina was analyzed to determine the impact on death sentencing of introducing mitigators related to diminished capacity on behalf of defendants. The results show that mitigators of this type were frequently submitted to the jury for consideration, and if accepted, the chances of a defendant being sentenced to death were diminished. However, when these mitigators were submitted but not accepted, the defendant's likelihood of receiving a death sentence was substantially escalated. These findings suggest a need for attorneys to carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of presenting diminished capacity mitigators in capital trials, and if choosing to do so, the absolute necessity of convincing the jury of their validity.

UR - https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/sok_facpub/109

UR - https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-1152(05)12006-7

U2 - 10.1016/S0196-1152(05)12006-7

DO - 10.1016/S0196-1152(05)12006-7

M3 - Chapter

BT - The Organizational Response to Persons with Mental Illness Involved with the Criminal Justice System

ER -

Benefits and Risks of Using “Diminished Capacity” Mitigation in Death Penalty Proceedings

Abstract

Disciplines

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this