Adverse Childhood Experiences in Capital Sentencing: A Focal Concerns Approach to Understanding Capital Juror Leniency

Abstract

This study examines the effect of defendant Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) on sentencing decisions in death penalty cases. Relying on Focal Concerns Theory and the affect heuristic, we examine the relative importance of substantive rationalities (blameworthiness and protection of the community from harm) and affect (anger and sympathy) in explaining the impact of such evidence. U.S. adults participated in a mock juror tasks in which exposure to ACEs as mitigating evidence was experimentally manipulated. Defense testimony elicited leniency, largely operating through affective responses to ACE evidence. Evidence of abuse did not contribute to evaluations of the defendant as a greater threat to the community. Substantive rationalities explained variability in sentencing decisions, but did not explain a substantial portion of the impact of ACE evidence. Implications for the constitutionality of capital punishment and directions for future research are discussed.