Does depth of information matter? An empirical test of the Marshall hypothesis

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study consists of an examination of Justice Thurgood Marshall’s second hypothesis in his concurring Furman opinion, where he suggested ‘people who were fully informed’ regarding the death penalty ‘would find the penalty, shocking, unjust and unacceptable’ (p. 361). While numerous empirical studies have been conducted to test this hypothesis, the intent of this study is to add to the existing literature by investigating whether the amount or depth of information about capital punishment is more likely to be associated with increased opposition to capital punishment. Data were collected in a full semester-long course, a 1-week topical lecture embedded in an Introduction to Criminal Justice course, and a comparison group Introduction to Sociology course where no information was presented on the death penalty (total n = 168). Results suggest that depth of information is significantly related to change in opposition toward capital punishment. More specifically, the full semester-long courses were more likely to result in increased knowledge as well as increased opposition toward the death penalty after taking the classes. This result supports a better understanding of the Marshall hypothesis and ensuing academic and legal implications for an evolving standard of decency analysis under the Eighth Amendment.