Beyond Atkins: how do the prongs perform during sentencing?

Show simple item record

dc.contributor Brodsky, Stanley L.
dc.contributor Conners, Frances A.
dc.contributor Hart, William P.
dc.contributor Almond, Bradley
dc.contributor.advisor Salekin, Karen L.
dc.contributor.author Wood, Mary E.
dc.date.accessioned 2017-03-02T19:55:16Z
dc.date.available 2017-03-02T19:55:16Z
dc.date.issued 2016
dc.identifier.other u0015_0000001_0002539
dc.identifier.other Wood_alatus_0004D_12615
dc.identifier.uri https://ir.ua.edu/handle/123456789/2810
dc.description Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
dc.description.abstract In Atkins v. Virginia (2002) the High Court categorically excluded individuals with intellectual disability (ID) from a punishment of death due to the limited judgment, poor reasoning, and reduced levels of impulse control inherent in the disability. This research explored the impact of the diagnostic prongs during sentencing for offenders found guilty of a capital crime and who failed to prove ID during an Atkins hearing. The current study used a mock jury deliberation paradigm with a large sample of undergraduate students divided into four-, five-, or six-person mock juries. Two of the three diagnostic prongs, limited intelligence and deficits in adaptive behavior, were manipulated with the goal of identifying how these deficits (or lack thereof) are interpreted independently, and in conjunction with, one another during capital mitigation. The results indicated that both IQ and AB deficits are considered mitigating by death-qualified mock jurors, and information about deficits in one or both of these areas was associated with a 1.8 times greater likelihood of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole relative to the condition in which neither IQ nor AB deficits were present. Consistent with the High Court’s ruling in Atkins v. Virginia (2002), participants who believed the hypothetical defendant had ID were significantly less likely to sentence him to death as opposed to life in prison without the possibility of parole. More broadly speaking, the current study also provided evidence that perceptions of mitigating factors mediate the relationship between individual attitudes and ultimate sentencing determinations, and perceptions of mitigating factors can be understood through the lens of attribution theory. Implications are discussed with a particular emphasis on how this information can be used in the courtroom. Recommendations for research are offered.
dc.format.extent 182 p.
dc.format.medium electronic
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
dc.language English
dc.language.iso en_US
dc.publisher University of Alabama Libraries
dc.relation.ispartof The University of Alabama Electronic Theses and Dissertations
dc.relation.ispartof The University of Alabama Libraries Digital Collections
dc.relation.haspart Supplemental material includes an IRB letter.
dc.relation.hasversion born digital
dc.rights All rights reserved by the author unless otherwise indicated.
dc.subject.other Psychology
dc.subject.other Law
dc.subject.other Clinical psychology
dc.title Beyond Atkins: how do the prongs perform during sentencing?
dc.type thesis
dc.type text
etdms.degree.department University of Alabama. Dept. of Psychology
etdms.degree.discipline Psychology
etdms.degree.grantor The University of Alabama
etdms.degree.level doctoral
etdms.degree.name Ph.D.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Browse

My Account