This study examines the release processes and post-release outcomes of individuals in North Carolina convicted of capital murder who were either initially sentenced to life with the possibility of parole or sentenced to death and later resentenced to life with the possibility of parole. The time period covered is 1977 to 1994, an era before North Carolina implemented life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) as the alternative sentence to the death penalty. Using logistic regression, we assess factors associated with parole decisions, including indicators of offender blameworthiness, community protection, and extra-legal considerations. We then analyze time to recidivism and offense types among those released, employing Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Finally, we explore associations between case, offender and victim characteristics, and recidivism using Fisher’s Exact Tests for dichotomous variables and nonparametric tests for continuous variables. Major findings indicate that of those whose life sentence remained intact ( n = 360), 159 (43.3%) have been granted parole. Of those, only 9 (5.7%) were later convicted of a crime, none of which were of a violent nature. These findings challenge the common justification for life without parole as necessary to prevent future harm, suggesting that assumptions about the dangerousness of capital murder offenders may be overstated.

The severity of capital punishment requires heightened attention to seat a fair and impartial jury to protect the rights guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment. Despite the important role change of venue motions play in protecting jury impartiality, little empirical research has examined factors influencing their filing and granting. Using a dataset of North Carolina capital trials from 1977 to 2023, we estimate binary and multilevel logistic regressions to identify predictors of change of venue motions filing and granting, accounting for between-county variation. The results show that filings are significantly more likely in cases involving multiple victims, rape, White or law enforcement victims, or retrials, but less likely when victims were engaged in illegal activity. Smaller jurisdictions are also more likely to generate venue motion requests. Further, judicial decisions to grant venue motions are driven more by county-level and courtroom characteristics than by case-specific factors. These findings suggest that venue motion filings reflect strategic defense decisions influenced by anticipated juror bias, while granting decisions are more strongly influenced by local institutional context. These findings suggest that judges may be responding more to institutional pressures than to the case-specific factors motivating defense requests, raising equity concerns about the consistent application of this Sixth Amendment safeguard across jurisdictions in capital cases.

In one of the first empirical examinations of the submission and acceptance of the heinous, atrocious, and cruel (HAC) aggravator in actual capital sentencing trials, we explore legal and extra-legal predictors of its submission by prosecutors and acceptance juries. Given that HAC involves a relatively subjective assessment by both parties, we do so with a focal concerns perspective that recognizes the role certain dynamics may play when decision making involves vague and/or unfamiliar concepts. Utilizing a near population of murder trials in North Carolina from 1977 through 2024 where the death penalty was sought, we find that both prosecutors’ decisions to submit a HAC aggravator and juries’ decisions to accept it if HAC is submitted are guided bylargely legalistic focal concerns involving blameworthiness and community threat. However, we also find some arbitrariness in those decisions via the influence of extra-legal factors, indicating that perceptual cues may also play a role. Implications of those findings are discussed and possible remedies to address the arbitrariness associated with this aggravating circumstance are considered.

Murder trials in which the death penalty is sought involves the jury's consideration of aggravating factors (circumstances necessary for the crime to be death penalty eligible) and mitigating factors (considerations submitted by the defense intended to dissuade a death sentence). Using data from capital murder trials in North Carolina from 1990 to 2023, this study examines the relationship of accepted and the heretofore unexplored impact of rejected aggravating, statutory mitigating, and non-mitigating factors on jury sentencing decisions while controlling for a host of other relevant variables. As expected, accepted aggravating factors statistically increased the odds of a death sentence while accepted statutory mitigating factors decreased those odds. However, in a finding not considered in previous the literature, we also determined that aggravating factors submitted but not accepted by the jury decreased the odds of a death sentence while mitigating factors (both statutory and non-statutory) submitted but not accepted increased the odds. A complex analysis of individual aggravators and mitigators revealed considerable variation in these impacts. The implications for the processing of capital punishment cases are discussed.

There is a significant volume of research on capital punishment regarding predictors of death sentencing. One factor that has not been empirically studied to any meaningful extent is whether a change of venue in the capital trial has any association with sentencing. Using data from a large number of North Carolina capital trials held in 1977-2023, we explore this topic by analyzing predictors of cases requesting a change of venue, characteristics of cases granted a change of venue, and the predictive association of changes of venue trials (n = 105) with death sentences. As well, we analyze the association of trials with changes of venue that were denied (n = 59) and subsequent death sentences. Complex logistic regression models, weighted and unweighted to account for county clustering effects, were tested that controlled for variables found to be associated with death sentencing. Change of venue cases were found to not be a statistically significant predictor of death sentencing, nor was being denied a change of venue. Further, retrials with a change of venue were not predictive of death sentencing. Speculation is provided to explain these outcomes.

In the 2005 Roper v. Simmons decision, the Supreme Court determined that capital punishment, the death penalty, was not appropriate for offenders under the age of 18. The Court accepted the argument that juveniles are less blameworthy than adult offenders due to differences in their cognitive abilities and the influence of factors outside of their control, such as household dysfunction or the existence of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). Recent empirical literature examining both brain development and the impact of ACEs on both brain maturity and offending behaviors demonstrates that brain maturation and psychosocial maturation continue into the mid-twenties. As a result, youthful offenders, those 18 to 24 of age, may possess many of the neuropsychological deficiencies attributed to juveniles and yet be sentenced to death. This research examines if juries of capital punishment trials recognize the impact of age and ACEs when determining their sentencing decision.

Twenty-five years. Resorting to an old adage, I have to say “my how time flies.” And fly by it has. In discussing this special issue commemorating the 25 years that Homicide Studies has been in existence, a frequent question posed in wonderment was “has it really been 25 years?” Well, indeed it has, and it is my privilege as the founding editor to offer here some brief reflections on the origins, current profile, and future directions for the journal.

Although all jurisdictions with capital punishment currently have at least one statutory aggravating factor for causing the death of a law-enforcement officer, little is currently known about the fate of these persons. There is a common perception that these individuals would be the most likely to receive a death sentence among those convicted of capital crimes; however, this assumption has not been empirically tested. The purpose of this research was to examine this assumption in the state of North Carolina among the population of offenders convicted of capital murder between the years of 1977 and 2009. Quantitative analysis shows that murdering a law-enforcement officer does not increase the likelihood of a death sentence. Additional qualitative analysis of these cases examines the ultimate fate of these offenders and reveals that the death penalty is reserved for those who either specifically seek out law-enforcement officers, brutalize and degrade them, or kill them in an attempt to avoid arrest or to escape that is either unsuccessful or did not require the murder to succeed in these endeavors. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Mentally ill and emotionally disturbed offenders comprise a significant component of those whose criminal conduct has swept them into the criminal justice system, including a subset who are tried and convicted of capital murder. The present study employs the population of capital cases advanced to penalty phase in the state of North Carolina (1990-2009) to examine whether presentation to the jury of the statutory mitigators of extreme mental and emotional disturbance and capacity impaired, and specific mental illness diagnoses, often referred to as mental disorders, at the sentencing phase mitigate against a sentence of death. Mental disorders included mood disorders, psychotic disorders, anxiety disorders, brain disorders, multiple mental illness diagnoses, learning disabilities, and personality disorders. Results from these 835 cases indicate that with the exception of one, the diagnosis of a learning disability, the capital jury's acceptance of various mental health conditions does not effectively mitigate against a capital sentence. In addition, jury rejection of a diagnosis of mental illness or the two mental health statutory mitigators, capacity impaired and extreme emotional disturbance, as a mitigating factor has a counter-mitigating effect in that it significantly increases the odds of a death penalty recommendation by about 85-200%.

Historical analyses of southern statutes (i.e., Slave Codes, Black Codes, “Jim Crow,” etc.) and their enforcement reveals evidence of an enduring cultural legacy prescribing lethal vengeance to Blacks who violate White sensibilities, especially for Black males accused of sexually assaulting White females. Using a population of official data on capital murder trials in North Carolina (1977–2009), this study examines the degree to which this cultural legacy endures to the present by examining the joint effects of offender’s race and rape/sexual assault on the capital sentencing outcomes of capital murder trial involving White female victims. Our findings reveal support for the continuing endurance of this cultural legacy of lethal vengeance.

Age is prominent among theories of criminology and victimology. It is less conspicuous in punishment theory, despite its emphasis in retributive theory and lawmaking. The present study evaluated competing 'years of life lost' and 'vulnerable victim' hypotheses to examine the influence of victim age in capital sentencing decisions. Using case file data on the population of capital murder trials in the State of North Carolina (1977-2009), our findings produce mixed results. Our quantitative analyses suggest that death sentences are significantly less likely in direct proportion to victim age. Killers of elderly victims are less likely to receive the death penalty; conversely, the odds of a death sentences are slightly greater for killers of child victims. Supplementary qualitative analyses suggest that while many child and elderly victims were not per se 'vulnerable,' a substantial subset of each clearly were treated as such. We discuss implications for vulnerable victim research and the role of quasi-legal factors in case outcomes.

The liberation hypothesis argues that the effects of extra-legal factors such as victim and/or offender race on sentencing outcomes are conditioned by legally relevant factors, particularly the severity or the strength of the case. Where the evidence is weak or contradictory or the offense is less severe, decision makers are most liberated to use extra-legal factors in reaching their decisions. This study uses data on a large sample of capital murder trials in North Carolina from 1977 to 2009 to test this hypothesis. The results show that the effects of extra-legal factors (specifically, the race of offender–race of victim dyad) vary across levels of offense severity, but in a complex manner. Most notably, Black defendant–White victim dyads demonstrated an increased probability of death sentences at high levels of severity, but decreased probabilities at lower levels of severity.

It was not too many decades ago that rape was a crime for which the death penalty was a permissible punishment in the United States, particularly in death penalty states in the South. Relatedly, historical and contemporary death penalty research almost always focuses on the role of the race of the defendant and, more recently, the race of the victim and defendant–victim racial dyads as being relevant factors in death penalty decision making. As such, the current study employs data from official court records for the population of capital trials (n = 954) in the state of North Carolina (1977–2009) to evaluate the effect of the rape/sexual assault statutory aggravating factor on jurors’ decision to recommend the death penalty. Results suggest that cases in which rape is an aggravating factor had a significantly greater odds of receiving a death penalty recommendation, and these results are robust after also considering the independent effects of defendant–victim racial dyads, even following the application of propensity score matching to equate cases on a host of defendant and victim characteristics, legal and extralegal confounders, and case characteristics. Study limitations and implications are discussed.

The relatively small body of prior research investigating whether the sex composition of juries impacts sentencing decisions has produced equivocal results. Exploring this topic further, the current study used a large sample of capital cases from North Carolina (n = 675) to examine (a) whether jury sex composition predicted jury capital punishment sentencing decisions; and (b) whether there were different models of sentencing for male-majority, equal male-female, and female-majority juries. When we controlled for a number of legal and extralegal factors, our findings indicated that jury sex composition was independently related to sentencing outcomes. Specifically, equal male-female juries were significantly more likely and female-majority juries were significantly less likely to choose the death penalty versus a sentence of life in prison. In addition, different models (predictors) of sentencing were revealed for each of the jury sex compositions. Implications for future research and policy are discussed.

Only a limited body of research has focused on how victim sex may affect capital sentencing decisions. Acknowledging this issue, the present study uses a large sample of capital cases from North Carolina (n = 709) and victim sex-specific logistic regression models to examine whether different variables are important predictors of receiving the death penalty for male victim cases versus female victim cases. Results indicate that (a) sex-specific models better explain juror death penalty decision-making compared with a full model, including victims of both sexes, and (b) different extralegal and legal characteristics predict jurors' decisions to choose the death penalty in cases with male victims versus female victims. Specifically, for male victims, older victim age, younger defendant age, urban jurisdiction, the number of victims killed, the number of aggravators, the number of mitigators, and case designation as heinous and cruel predict juror decision-making. Comparatively, for female victim cases, only the number of mitigators and case designation as heinous and cruel are significant predictors. Theoretical and legal implications as well as directions for future research are discussed.

Only a limited body of research has focused on how victim sex may affect capital sentencing decisions. Acknowledging this issue, the present study uses a large sample of capital cases from North Carolina ( n = 709) and victim sex–specific logistic regression models to examine whether different variables are important predictors of receiving the death penalty for male victim cases versus female victim cases. Results indicate that (a) sex-specific models better explain juror death penalty decision-making compared with a full model, including victims of both sexes, and (b) different extralegal and legal characteristics predict jurors’ decisions to choose the death penalty in cases with male victims versus female victims. Specifically, for male victims, older victim age, younger defendant age, urban jurisdiction, the number of victims killed, the number of aggravators, the number of mitigators, and case designation as heinous and cruel predict juror decision-making. Comparatively, for female victim cases, only the number of mitigators and case designation as heinous and cruel are significant predictors. Theoretical and legal implications as well as directions for future research are discussed.

This study examines death/life capital sentences in one southern state, North Carolina, during the period 1990 to 2010 to determine the extent to which they are comparatively excessive/lenient. The study employs data derived from a variety of official sources on the population of capital trials in the state during this timeframe and follows the analytic techniques developed by David Baldus and his colleagues and by Paternoster and Kazyaka in their studies of comparative excessiveness in capital sentencing in California, Georgia, and South Carolina, respectively. The results show a substantial number of death sentences that meet the standard for excessiveness, but the data also show a nearly equal number of life sentences that may be deemed too lenient. The implications of these findings are discussed.

A small body of prior research has examined the impact of victim sex on jury death penalty decision-making and the majority of this research has demonstrated some evidence of a "female victim effect" such that cases involving a female victim are more likely to receive the death penalty than similarly situated cases with a male victim. However, within this line of research studies have suggested that victim sex may work in conjunction with other case characteristics. In order to further explore this phenomenon, the current study examines a near-population of death penalty cases from North Carolina (n=1069) from 1977-2009 using propensity score matching. Results demonstrate that once cases are matched on more than 50 legal and extralegal case characteristics, there is no statistically significant or substantive link between victim sex and death penalty decision-making. Findings suggest that it is concrete differences in the legal and extralegal factors observed in cases with female victims compared to male victims that shape jury death sentence decisions rather than a direct effect of victim sex (before matching: OR=1.53; 95% CI=1.20-1.95; p<.001/after matching: OR=0.90; 95% CI=0.66-1.24; p=.52). Study limitations and implications are also discussed.

Editorial IntroductionIt is our pleasure to introduce you to our special issue on Current Issues and Controversies in Capital Punishment. Capital punishment continues to be one of the most highly debated and polarizing public policies issues in the United States. But, the number of individuals on death row has reached an almost twenty year low, many states have moratoriums on capital punishment, while others have repealed the use of the death penalty altogether (Death Penalty Information Center, 2014, 2013a). At the same time, thirty-two states continue to use capital punishment and as of this writing, twenty individuals have been executed in 2014 (Death Penalty Information Center, 2013b).Social science research often enters the capital punishment debate through studies examining the influence of legal and extralegal characteristics on prosecutorial decisions to seek the death penalty (e.g., Paternoster, 1984; Paternoster & Brame, 2003), jury death sentence decision-making (e.g., Jen... Language: en