Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 249–258, 1999 Copyright © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0047-2352/99 $–see front matter

PII S0047-2352(98)00063-4

ELITE VERSUS CITIZEN ATTITUDES ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: INCONGRUITY BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND POLICYMAKERS

John T. Whitehead Michael B. Blankenship John Paul Wright Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology East Tennessee State University Johnson City, Tennessee 37614-0555

ABSTRACT The results of a survey of Tennessee legislators, prosecutors, and public defenders were compared to the results of a general citizen survey to analyze attitudes toward capital punishment in the two groups. The study is a replication of McGarrell and Sandys’s study of Indiana legislators, which found some degree of pluralistic ignorance: both legislators and citizens had misperceptions of the other’s attitudes. Results suggested that, similar to their Indiana counterparts, Tennessee legislators overestimate the degree of citizen support for the death penalty. © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION Gauging public attitudes toward the death penalty has become a staple interest of both pollsters and criminologists. Bohm (1998) reminded us, however, that sampling opinions is not merely an academic exercise, but is germane to the continued viability of capital punishment. Public attitudes influence elected officials’ support for the ultimate sanction. For example, governors and legislators may perceive the need to demonstrate how tough they are on crime by enacting and broadening death penalty statutes and by refusing requests for clemency. Prosecutors and judges may be more inclined to seek and to impose

death sentences, respectively, with a wary eye toward reelection or elevation to a more prestigious position. Appellate court judges, including U.S. Supreme Court Justices, may use public attitudes as measures of evolving standards of decency, a concept enunciated in Trop v. Dulles (356 U.S. 86, 1958) (Bohm, 1998). Given the impact of public attitudes on death penalty administration, it is assumed that policymakers and administrators know their constituents’ positions on these issues, and that the public is informed about the attitudes of elected and appointed officials. Prior research, however, has indicated that legislators are not always accurate in their estimation of voter sup-

249

250

J. T. WHITEHEAD, M. B. BLANKENSHIP and J. P. WRIGHT

port for the death penalty. For example, McGarrell and Sandys (1996) found that Indiana legislators underestimated the degree of citizen support for a life without parole option to the death penalty. Legislators estimated that about 40 percent of their constituents would favor life without parole to the death penalty when in fact 62 percent preferred life without parole plus work to pay restitution to the victims’ families. McGarrell and Sandys also found that the public overestimated legislator support for life without parole. In short, McGarrell and Sandys concluded that legislators and citizens are acting out of pluralistic ignorance rather than from accurate information. Other research about legislator attitudes has shown that support for the death penalty decreases when legislators are offered the option of life without parole. Sixty-three percent of the legislators in Massachusetts (Dugan et al., 1995) and 51 percent of those in Indiana (McGarrell and Sandys, 1996) favored life without parole plus restitution to the families of victims when offered that option. In Massachusetts only 45 percent of the legislators expressed favor for the death penalty on a single-item measure, a percentage that is rather startling in this era of punitive penal philosophy and practice. A few years earlier, Flanagan, Brennan, and Cohen (1993) found that New York legislator attitudes toward the death penalty varied with the details of the murder. Killing a police officer, for example, elicited a 63 percent positive response toward capital punishment, while killing in a moment of passion only brought out a 5 percent favor response. Such decreases in support of the death penalty when offered the optional sentence of life without parole were also found in citizen surveys (Bowers, 1993; McGarrell and Sandys, 1996; Sandys and McGarrell, 1995). So if legislators rely on simplistic, one-item measures of citizen attitudes toward the death penalty (e.g., Maguire and Pastore, 1997), then they are very likely to overestimate the true attitudes of their constituents toward capital punishment. Part of the explanation for this misperception was found in the wording of questions posed to respondents. Direct questions in public opinion polls indicated that the overwhelming majority of

Americans favor capital punishment (Maguire and Pastore, 1997), though research has indicated that death penalty attitudes are more complex. Over 75 percent of Americans favor the death penalty, although that percentage decreases considerably when respondents are informed about the deterrent impact and true costs of capital punishment. Recent research appeared to confirm Bowers’ contention that much support for the death penalty is spurious. What people really want is true incapacitation of murderers. Many apparent supporters of capital punishment—as measured by global measures of support—will switch to preference for true life without parole sentences or life without parole with work and restitution to the families of murder victims (Bowers, 1993; McGarrell and Sandys, 1996; Sandys and McGarrell, 1995). Support also decreased when the questions were made more specific, such as offering mitigating details or options such as life without parole (Dugan et al., 1995; Wright, Bohm, and Jamieson, 1995). Further, research has indicated much less support for the death penalty for juveniles (Durham, 1994; Sandys and McGarrell, 1995). There was also concern that much of the public opinion research assumes that almost all respondents have an opinion about capital punishment, when in fact many people have not formed an opinion (Jones, 1994). Given the literal life and death nature of capital punishment, it is important to continue research on this topic. New York State legislators, for example, recently reinstated the death penalty in their state after years without capital punishment. This research represents a partial replication of previous research on legislator attitudes toward capital punishment, this time focusing on Tennessee lawmakers. This research also goes beyond previous research on legislators by including chief prosecutors and chief public defenders in the sample. Such individuals do not make the laws directly. Prosecutors, however, do decide for which individuals they will seek the death penalty. Both prosecutors and public defenders are the frontline protagonists in capital punishment cases as they strive to convince juries to convict or acquit and to sentence or spare defendants to/from the death penalty.

Attitudes on Capital Punishment

OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH The objective of the analysis was to approximate a replication of the study by McGarrell and Sandys (1996), that is, to compare the attitudes of legislators and the public in a southern state toward capital punishment. As explained below, the research analyzed data from a survey of policymakers and a survey of citizens. Each group was not specifically asked to speculate about the preferences of the other group, although there is sufficient data in each survey to offer some illuminating comparisons and contrasts between the two sides. This research can suggest whether the findings of McGarrell and Sandys (1996) were limited to one state or if the problem of pluralistic ignorance about death penalty attitudes appeared to be more generalized. It can be argued that if the problem also exists in a southern state such as Tennessee, a state with a much different political tradition than the midwestern state of Indiana, then the problem is much more likely to be one that is fairly widespread across the nation. If the problem does not exist in Tennessee, then there is more reason to believe that the findings of McGarrell and Sandys were idiosyncratic to the Hoosier state. One reason to expect a difference in Tennessee is the concept presented by Borg (1997), of a southern subculture of punitiveness. He argued that at least some southerners—those who are more conservative in general—will be more pro-death penalty. One reason not to expect any difference is Gallup and other opinion poll data showing that the South is not the region with the highest favor for the death penalty (Maguire and Pastore, 1997).

METHODOLOGY This study was based on two surveys. In the spring of 1996, a questionnaire was sent to each chief prosecutor (District Attorney General), chief public defender, and state legislator in Tennessee. (Public defenders were included for contrast. It was hypothesized that public defenders would be more opposed to the death penalty than both prosecutors and legislators.) The questionnaire also included demographic variables: age,

251

race, experience, gender, and political party. An item measuring liberal-conservative orientation was also included. A separate survey of Tennessee citizens was conducted in 1997. Questionnaires were sent to approximately one thousand households. Two weeks later a follow-up postcard was sent. A second survey was mailed out to nonresponding households two weeks after the postcards. A final survey was mailed approximately three weeks after the second surveys were mailed. After omitting undeliverable and unusable surveys, including refusals, the final response rate for the citizen survey was 50 percent (n 5 390). Unlike McGarrell and Sandys, the present research did not rely on one survey that had precisely parallel questions for both legislators and the public. Instead, the results of two separate surveys conducted at slightly different times and employing different items were combined.1 The time frames of the two surveys were close enough to be comparable. Different item wording for the legislator and citizen surveys would appear to be more troublesome. Previous research has consistently shown that changing the wording of questions measuring attitudes toward capital punishment had no appreciable impact on outcomes (Ellsworth and Gross, 1994). The wording of the items for both surveys follow. The elite survey items were borrowed (with permission) from McGarrell and Sandys (1996). The variation in items warranted caution, though there was enough similarity to justify a valid examination of the research question. Concerning the sample of elites, forty of the eighty-seven respondents were state legislators, twenty-five were prosecutors (District Attorneys General), and twenty-two were chief public defenders. The response rates were approximately 30 percent for the legislators, 80 percent for the prosecutors, and 70 percent for the public defenders.2 As Table 1 indicates, slightly over half (52 percent) had seven or fewer years of seniority. The sample was mostly male (95 percent) and White (99 percent). Just over half of the respondents (53 percent) reported that they were Democrats; 40 percent said they were Republicans. Twenty-five percent reported that they were moderate in their political views, 63 percent conservative, and only 12 percent liberal. Con-

252

J. T. WHITEHEAD, M. B. BLANKENSHIP and J. P. WRIGHT

TABLE 1

TABLE 2

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

ATTITUDES TOWARD THE DEATH PENALTY (PERCENT)

Elites

Elites

Percent

Job title Legislator Prosecutor Public defender Seniority 7 years or less 8-15 years Over 15 years Gender Female Male Race White African American Political affiliation Democrat Republican Other/none Political ideology Liberal Moderate Conservative

46 29 25 52 25 24 5 95 99 1 53 40 7 12 25 63

Citizens

Percent

Gender Female Male Race White African American Other Marital status Married Divorced Widowed Separated Single Political ideology Liberal Somewhat liberal Neutral Somewhat conservative Conservative

55 45

Global death penalty item: Do you generally favor or oppose capital punishment, that is, the death penalty, in cases where people are convicted of first-degree murder? Public Legislators Prosecutors defenders Favor Oppose Don’t know

95

91 9

21 79

5

Preference for life without parole item: If convicted, first-degree murderers in Tennessee could be sentenced to life in prison with absolutely no chance of ever being released on parole, would you prefer this as an alternative to the death penalty? Yes 13 21 84 No 65 67 11 Don’t know 23 13 5 Preference for life without parole plus work plus restitution: Same as above plus “and also be required to work in prison industries for money that would go to the families of their victims . . .”: Yes 33 21 65 No 53 67 25 Don’t know 15 13 10

Citizens 89 3 8 71 10 10 1 9 5 18 25 35 17

cerning the sample of Tennessee citizens, 77 percent identified themselves as politically neutral or conservative. The respondents were mostly White (89 percent), married (71 percent), and 55 percent were male.

RESULTS As Table 2 indicates, the global, single-item measures of attitude toward capital punishment

Global item: Do you favor or oppose giving the death penalty to an individual convicted of murder? Favor 75 Oppose 13 No opinion 12 Life without parole versus death penalty item: If Tennessee laws were changed so that a convicted murderer could be sentenced to life in prison without any chance of parole or other release, which of the following would you support? A full life sentence instead of the death penalty 18 The option of imposing either a full life sentence or the death penalty 42 The death penalty rather than a full life sentence 37 Neither the death penalty nor a full life sentence 3

do indeed show considerable support for the death penalty in both samples, except for the public defenders. Among the elites, nine out of ten legislators and prosecutors favor capital punishment, as do three-quarters of the general population sample. Approximately 80 percent of the defenders, however, oppose the death penalty.3 As predicted by the literature, the option of life without parole does reduce such global favor

253

Attitudes on Capital Punishment

for the death penalty. Thirteen percent of the legislators said they would prefer life without parole and another 23 percent refrained from clear opposition and reported that they did not know. Legislator approval for this option increased to one-third when a work and restitution to the victims’ families requirement was added to a life without parole sentence. About one-fifth of the prosecutors favored a life without parole option. Approximately 85 percent of the public defenders favored this option and about two-thirds favored life without parole plus the work-restitution requirement. Eighteen percent of the general citizen survey respondents reported favor for life without parole “instead of the death penalty” and another 42 percent support “the option of imposing either a full life sentence or the death penalty.” So approximately 60 percent of the citizens would favor at least the option of life without parole sentencing for convicted murderers. Elites expressed concern about voter reaction to their views on the death penalty. Approximately 70 percent of both the legislators and the prosecutors reported that they thought a vote against the death penalty would hurt their reelection chances (Table 3). Eighty-two percent of the legislators and 92 percent of the prosecutors thought that their constituents were conservative (in response to the question: “Please check where you would place your constituents on the same scale of political views.”). No constituents were ranked liberal. Citizens, on the other hand, self-reported that almost a quarter (23 percent) were liberal and only 52 percent described themselves as some type of conservative. The death penalty issue involved more than simple preference for or against. One frequently mentioned argument in favor of the death penalty was that capital punishment achieves general deterrence. Several items allowed for examination of elite and citizen attitudes about deterrence and the death penalty. As Table 3 illustrates, in the elite survey, over three-quarters of both the legislators and the prosecutors agreed that more frequent enforcement of the death penalty would deter more murders. In the citizen survey, 63 percent of the people favoring the death penalty ranked deterrence as either their first or second most important reason for supporting the death penalty and 15 percent of

the supporters said they would no longer support capital punishment if they could be convinced that it does not deter anyone from murder. On the other hand, a quarter (26 percent) of those opposed to capital punishment said that they would not still be opposed to the death penalty if they could be convinced that executing murderers was a deterrent to murder. Onequarter (24 percent) of those opposed to the death penalty listed no evidence of deterrence as their first or second most important reason for their opposition to the death penalty. Race is another important consideration concerning the administration of the death penalty. In the elite survey, 90 percent of the legislators and 100 percent of the defenders, but only 65 percent of the prosecutors, agreed that death penalty laws should guarantee no racial bias in the administration of the death penalty. A third of the legislators and almost 90 percent of the public defenders, but only 8 percent of the prosecutors, agreed with the statement that the death penalty is most likely when the victim is White and the offender is Black. Among the citizen supporters, 39 percent said they would not support the death penalty if they could be convinced that race was a factor in deciding who received a death sentence and who did not. Among those citizens opposed to the death penalty, 26 percent reported that they would not still be opposed to the death penalty if they could be convinced that the death penalty was administered fairly (without regard to race, gender, or social class).

DISCUSSION Legislators, prosecutors, and citizens were similar in their apparent favor for the death penalty; at least 75 percent favored the death penalty when asked a simple global question on the issue. This favor decreased considerably, however, when the option of life without parole was included in the questioning. One-third of the legislators favored life without parole plus work and restitution. Sixty percent of the citizens favored life sentences or the option of choosing life without parole or the death penalty. This reduced favor for the death penalty in view of a life without parole option was consistent with

254

J. T. WHITEHEAD, M. B. BLANKENSHIP and J. P. WRIGHT

TABLE 3 ATTITUDES TOWARD THE DEATH PENALTY: REELECTION, DETERRENCE, AND RACIAL BIAS (PERCENT)

Elites Percent of Elites Agreeing Item Vote against death penalty would hurt reelection chances. More frequent enforcement of death penalty would deter more murderers. Death penalty laws should guarantee no racial bias . . . . Death penalty is most likely when the victim is White and the defendant is Black. Where would you place your constituents on the same scale of political views (referring to self-rating item reported in Table 1)? Liberal Moderate Conservative Don’t know

Legislators

Prosecutors

Defenders

72

68

37

79 90

76 65

14 100

32

8

86

0 18 82 0

0 8 92 0

24 14 52 10

Citizens Support Capital Punishment

Rank

Executing murderers deters other potential murderers.

First Second Third Fourth–sixth Yes No No opinion Yes No No opinion

If you could be convinced that the death penalty does not deter anyone from committing murder, would you still support the death penalty? Would you still support the death penalty if you were convinced that race was a factor in deciding who received a death sentence and who did not?

Percentage 45.3 18.1 22.2 14.4 70.7 15.3 14.0 40.6 39.3 20.1

Citizens Oppose Capital Punishment There is no evidence that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder. Would you still oppose death penalty even if shown that execution does deter murder? Would still oppose the death penalty even if convinced that it was administered fairly (without regard to race, class, or gender)? How would you rate your general political views?

the literature, especially with Bowers’s spuriousness thesis that simple attitudinal measures obscure more complex attitudes (Bowers,1993). An implication of this study was that legislators are overly concerned with voter reaction to

Rank

Percentage

First Second Third Fourth–eighth Yes No No opinion Yes No No opinion Liberal Neutral Conservative

12.0 12.0 14.0 62.0 49.4 26.0 24.7 54.1 25.7 20.3 23 25 52

any vote against the death penalty. As noted, about seven out of ten legislators thought a vote against the death penalty would hurt their reelection chances. This belief appears to be an exaggeration of the damage that such a vote might in-

Attitudes on Capital Punishment

flict, given that 60 percent of the citizens noted approval for at least the option of life without parole sentences. It appears that legislators were basing their decisions on surveys of citizens that included only simplistic global measures of death penalty opinion. Such global measures showed 75 to 80 percent approval of the death penalty. It appears that legislators relied on such survey findings and then feared voter reprisal when considering any vote against capital punishment. If legislators were aware of voter favor for the option of life without parole sentencing, their fear of not getting reelected might decrease considerably. Legislator opinion here appears similar to their overestimation of the degree to which they think their constituents are conservative. As noted above, legislators (and prosecutors) tended to see their constituents as not liberal but as overwhelmingly conservative when in fact only 52 percent of the respondents in the citizen survey described themselves as conservative and 23 percent actually said they were liberal. Tennessee legislators’ exaggerated fear of voter reprisal come reelection time was consistent with the finding of McGarrell and Sandys (1996), where Indiana legislators also underestimated the degree of citizen support for the life without parole option to the death penalty. Despite the geographic difference, it appears that both groups of lawmakers had mistaken beliefs about the true attitudes of the electorate toward capital punishment. Legislators might be overly concerned about any opposition to the death penalty, though public defenders seem to be quite different from their constituents. On the global measure especially, the defenders were diametrically opposed to the citizens: 79 percent of them opposed the death penalty while 75 percent of the citizens favored it! The overwhelming majority of the defenders favored a life without parole option while only 18 percent of the citizens came out directly in favor of life without parole. (As noted, another 42 percent of the citizens supported either the death penalty or life without parole.) Since public defenders do not have the responsibility of making the laws, their difference in attitude from most citizens was not as troubling as legislator dissonance with citizen opin-

255

ion might have been. In addition, some commentators instruct defense attorneys to be zealous advocates for their clients. Opposition to the death penalty is entirely consistent with such zealous advocacy. It is interesting that chief public defenders in Tennessee were so opposed to the death penalty compared to the citizens who responded to the Tennessee Crime Survey. This may cause some role conflict when the chief defenders are up for reelection. Some sources admonish them to be zealous client advocates and they purport to be death penalty opponents, but their electorate still expressed considerably greater support for capital punishment than they did. It is interesting to speculate how they manage to get elected or reelected in such a conflicting milieu. The public defender data raise the caveat that the elites were not asked to distinguish between their professional and their personal attitudes. It is possible that legislators, for example, may personally oppose capital punishment but favor it professionally on the justification that the majority of their constituents favor it. It appears possible that additional information could have some impact on both elite and citizen attitudes about the death penalty. Almost 40 percent of the citizen supporters said they would not support the death penalty if they could be convinced that race was a factor in deciding who receives a death sentence, and since 15 percent said they would change if they could be convinced that capital punishment does not deter, there is room for information on either of these issues, which may decrease the percentage of citizens supporting capital punishment. The elite survey did not have the same questions, but other items do indicate potential for movement given more information. Only one-third of the legislators agreed that capital punishment is most likely when the victim is White and the offender is Black, but 90 percent thought there should be no racial bias. It appears that additional information about this issue could possibly change some percentage of the remaining legislators. It also appears that legislators want the elimination of racial bias and any evidence showing such bias would have a receptive audience. The case might be more difficult to make for prosecutors. The fact

256

J. T. WHITEHEAD, M. B. BLANKENSHIP and J. P. WRIGHT

that only 8 percent of them agreed that the death penalty is most likely with a White victimBlack offender combination suggests that they are threatened by any implication that their decision making involves bias. With regard to deterrence, it appears that citizens would be influenced by information on the effectiveness of deterrence, while legislators might be open to argumentation about the impossibility of enforcing the death penalty frequently enough to make a difference. Abolitionists and supporters might investigate a state, such as Texas, which has been enforcing the death penalty more frequently, to examine its subsequent homicide rate to learn more about the deterrent impact of the death penalty. It is interesting to note that Tennessee citizens were very similar to Indiana citizens: approximately 60 percent of both groups noted at least some favor for a life without parole option. Caution is necessary, however, because the citizen survey in Tennessee used different wording. Tennessee legislators, however, were less supportive of the option of life without parole (plus work plus restitution to the victims’ families) for murderers. Only a third of the Tennessee legislators expressed favor for this option compared to just over half of the Indiana legislators (McGarrell and Sandys, 1996). The citizen results did not support any claim that southerners are more punitive than midwesterners (Borg, 1997), while the legislator results could support such a claim. Actual practice shows that Tennessee has about twice as many inmates on death row as Indiana (Snell, 1996).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION As McGarrell and Sandys (1996) found in Indiana, this research suggests some pluralistic ignorance among legislators concerning their attitudes about the death penalty. Legislators’ fear of voters come reelection day appears to be exaggerated. Both legislators and citizens were not as one-dimensional in their support for the death penalty as global measures of support indicate. The introduction of questions tapping attitudes toward life without parole indicated that

there is some room for legislator opposition to the death penalty. There is caution due to the fact that this research used two separate questionnaires rather than perfectly parallel instruments, though it appears that legislators could support life without parole legislation and not fear political execution at the next election. It also appears that both elites and citizens have some potential to listen to arguments about possible racial bias and deterrence in the administration of the death penalty. Citizens clearly show the possibility of change given strong evidence on these issues. The elite questionnaire did not ask the same questions, though items about racial bias and deterrence also suggest that elites would consider information on these two issues in their consideration of capital punishment. There is some hope that politicians could go beyond a simplistic “get tough” approach. As Benekos and Merlo (1997) have noted in their discussion of a baseball punishment attitude (three-strikes-and-you’re-out laws) concerning chronic offenders, it is imperative to consider the full ramifications of a policy. Three-strikes-andyou’re-out laws have the potential to increase prison populations even more so than they are presently increasing. There are consequences to consider with the death penalty. One negative consequence is that the death penalty may exacerbate racial tensions in the United States. Given that African Americans are being incarcerated at record rates, that Blacks who kill Whites disproportionately receive the death penalty, and that African Americans comprise 42 percent of the offenders on death row (Snell, 1996), elites may wish to reconsider a practice that offers no proven deterrence (Costanzo, 1997; Sellin, 1980) and probably fuels racial tensions. A paradoxical aspect of the death penalty is its tendency to attract inordinate attention and debate. The United States has over three thousand offenders on death row, yet this constitutes only a fraction of one percent of the prison population and even less of a fraction of the total correctional population (prison and community corrections population combined). The nation spends a great deal of time and energy debating the death penalty. On the one hand, that debate is crucial, especially to the offenders on death row and to their victims. On the other hand, if

257

Attitudes on Capital Punishment

the states spent only half of that time improving their prisons and probation and parole, they might well achieve more dramatic effects on their respective criminal justice systems. An implication of this research is that both policymakers and citizens are willing to consider an option such as life without parole. One benefit of that option might be that more time and resources would then be available to devote to other issues, which sorely need increased attention. There is also the case of incongruity between public defender attitudes and citizen attitudes. Defenders are much more anti-capital punishment than voters. Such defender-voter incongruity is less troubling than legislator-voter discord. Legislators are supposed to implement voter opinion into law. The mission of defenders, to provide zealous advocacy for their clients (American Bar Association, Canon 15 of Professional Ethics, as cited in Cohen, 1998; Curtis, 1998; Strickland v. Washington, 19844), however, is very consistent with anti-capital punishment attitudes. Favor for the death penalty among public defenders would pose greater concern since it might generate role conflict for defenders. Defenders who would have to balance suggestions for professional behavior with personal opinion in favor of the death penalty could very well experience cognitive dissonance that would be stressful. Given their anticapital punishment opinions, it is easier to be zealous advocates for defendants anxious to avoid death row. The results of the two surveys in Tennessee give such defenders some solace that the public is neither as pro-death penalty nor as simplistic as one-item measures suggest.

NOTES 1. The reason for the separate surveys was that the original objective of the first author was to conduct a survey of Tennessee legislators, prosecutors, and public defenders and the original objective of the other two authors was to conduct a completely distinct general survey (the Tennessee Crime Survey) of Tennessee citizens. Only after these different surveys had been completed did the authors come to the realization that there was the possibility of comparing and contrasting particular items in the two surveys to approximate a replication of the McGarrell-Sandys research in Indiana. 2. The low response rate for the state legislators necessitated caution with regard to the findings and conclusions

about this segment of the sample. Use of a mail survey rather than a telephone probably contributed to the low response rate of the lawmakers. McGarrell and Sandys used both telephone calls and mailed questionnaires and achieved a much better response rate. On the other hand, the response rates for both prosecutors and public defenders were very high. The final elite sample did include many of the policymakers in the State of Tennessee. 3. The findings on the elites have been presented in greater depth, including a multivariate analysis, in Whitehead (1998; Copyright 1998 Sage Publications, Inc.). Here the basic findings on the elites were placed in a completely different context, namely, in a comparison with the previously unreported citizen attitudes. 4. In Strickland, Justice O’Connor spoke of “the overriding mission of vigorous advocacy of the defendant’s cause.”

REFERENCES Benekos, P. J., and Merlo, A. V. (1997). Three strikes and you’re out: The political sentencing game. In Correctional contexts: Contemporary and classical readings, eds. J. W. Marquart and J. R. Sorensen. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing. Bohm, R. M. (1998). American death penalty opinion: Past, present, and future. In America’s experiment with capital punishment, eds. J. R. Acker, R. M. Bohm, and C. S. Lanier. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Borg, M. J. (1997). The Southern subculture of punitiveness: Regional variation in support for capital punishment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 34:25–45. Bowers, W. (1993). Capital punishment and contemporary values: People’s misgivings and the court’s misperceptions. Law and Society Review 27:157–75. Cohen, E. D. (1998). Pure legal advocates and moral agents: Two concepts of a lawyer in an adversary system. In Justice, crime and ethics (3rd ed.), eds. M. C. Braswell, B. R. McCarthy, and B. J. McCarthy. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing. Costanzo, M. (1997). Just revenge: Costs and consequences of the death penalty. New York: St. Martin Press. Curtis, C. P. (1998). The ethics of advocacy. In Before the law: An introduction to the legal process (6th ed.), eds. J. J. Bonsignore, E. Katsh, P. d’Errico, R. M. Pipkin, S. Arons, and J. Rifkin. Boston, Houghton Mifflin. Dugan, P. H., Gorzkowicz, M., Hart, D. P., Kuck, S., McCarrick, K., McMahon, S., Nowak, L., O’Brien, P., Myers, M., and Bowers, W. J. (1995). Massachusetts legislators’ crime and justice policy preferences. Unpublished report. Boston, MA: Northeastern University. Durham, A. M. (1994). Crisis and reform: Current issues in American punishment. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company. Ellsworth, P. C., and Gross, S. R. (1994). Hardening of attitudes: American’s views on the death penalty. Journal of Social Issues 50:19–52. Flanagan, T. J., Brennan, P. G., and Cohen, D. (1993). Conservatism and capital punishment in the state capitol: Lawmakers and the death penalty. Prison Journal 72:37–56. Jones, P. R. (1994). It’s not what you ask, it’s the way that you ask it: Question form and public opinion on the death penalty. Prison Journal 73:32–50. Maguire, K., and Pastore, A. L. (1997). Sourcebook of

258

J. T. WHITEHEAD, M. B. BLANKENSHIP and J. P. WRIGHT

Criminal Justice Statistics 1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. McGarrell, E. F., and Sandys, M. (1996). The misperception of public opinion toward capital punishment. American Behavioral Scientist 39:500–13. Sandys, M., and McGarrell, E. F. (1995). Attitudes toward capital punishment: Preference for the penalty or mere acceptance? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 32:191–213. Sellin, T. (1980). The penalty of death. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Snell, T. L. (1996). Capital punishment 1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Whitehead, J. T. (1998). Good ol’ boys and the chair: Death

penalty attitudes of policy makers in Tennessee. Crime and Delinquency 44:245–56. Wright, H. O., Jr, Bohm, R. M., and Jamieson, K. M. (1995). A comparison of uninformed and informed death penalty opinions: A replication and expansion. American Journal of Criminal Justice 20:57–87.

CASES CITED Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958).