Content area
Abstract
Recent theoretical work by Garland (1990) argues that in order to understand penal policy, it is necessary to study cultural forces, particularly religion. This research attempts to test this proposition by studying the experiences of former capital jurors who participated in the Capital Jury Project (CJP), a multi-state study of capital jury decision-making. While much literature points to the influence of religious affiliation and religiosity on punitiveness and support for capital punishment (e.g., Bjarnason and Welch 2004; Doktór 2002; Grasmick, Cochran, Bursik, and Kimpel 1993; Grasmick, Davenport, Chamlin and Bursik 1992; Perl and McClintock 2001; Young 1992), very little research has looked at how religion shapes actual punishment decisions. Furthermore, capital jurors are not randomly drawn from the population; they must be death-qualified, a procedure which ensures that capital jurors are more punitive than the general population (Fleury-Steiner 2004; Young 2004). Therefore, religion may not play as prominent a role among capital jurors as it does in the general population. However, Garland's (1990) cultural theory of punitiveness holds that religious ideology infuses all penal practice; therefore religious ideology should trump the punitive effects of the death qualification process. Findings demonstrate that Baptists are significantly more punitive than other capital jurors but that religiosity (i.e., church attendance) did not predict stronger punitive orientations. Alternatively, greater religiosity does significantly predict less punitive orientations among Presbyterian capital jurors. Finally, the research explored the influence of jurors' punitive orientations on their sentencing predispositions. Results indicate that the more punitive capital jurors are, the more likely they are to be predisposed to the death sentence. The implications of these findings for the future of capital punishment in America are discussed.
