IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v102y2021i4p1931-1946.html

Unmasking the American death penalty debate: Race, context, and citizens’ willingness to execute

Author

Listed:
  • Mark D. Ramirez

Abstract

Research on public attitudes toward the death penalty has yet to systematically examine the role of race in the context of offense‐related attributes. This study uses a conjoint experiment randomly exposing a sample of 500 U.S. adults to different pairings of capital offenders to test the role of both offender and offense‐related attributes on beliefs about death penalty deservingness. The results show offense‐related factors play a significant role in who the public deems deserving of the death penalty, while the offender's race matters only for citizens holding prejudicial opinions towards Blacks or Latinos. Instrumental considerations typically outweigh racial considerations in death penalty judgments, although perceptions of those factors might be racialized as well. The results point to a potential disjuncture between the desires of citizens and the implementation of the death penalty.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark D. Ramirez, 2021. "Unmasking the American death penalty debate: Race, context, and citizens’ willingness to execute," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1931-1946, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:4:p:1931-1946
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13051
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13051
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13051?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cochran, John K. & Chamlin, Mitchell B., 2006. "The enduring racial divide in death penalty support," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 85-99.
    2. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    3. Naoki Egami & Kosuke Imai, 2019. "Causal Interaction in Factorial Experiments: Application to Conjoint Analysis," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 114(526), pages 529-540, April.
    4. Jens Hainmueller & Daniel J. Hopkins, 2015. "The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(3), pages 529-548, July.
    5. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara B. & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 207-221, April.
    6. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100944, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Mark Peffley & Jon Hurwitz, 2007. "Persuasion and Resistance: Race and the Death Penalty in America," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(4), pages 996-1012, October.
    8. Paul Brace & Brent D. Boyea, 2008. "State Public Opinion, the Death Penalty, and the Practice of Electing Judges," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(2), pages 360-372, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gosciak, Jennah & Molitor, Daniel & Lundberg, Ian, 2025. "Adaptive Randomization in Conjoint Survey Experiments," SocArXiv 69y2j_v1, Center for Open Science.
    2. Krawczyk, Michal & Blasco, Andrea & Gajderowicz, Tomasz & Giergiczny, Marek, 2024. "Support for temporary protection of displaced populations in the EU: A conjoint experiment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    3. Vrânceanu, Alina & Dinas, Elias & Heidland, Tobias & Ruhs, Martin, 2023. "The European refugee crisis and public support for the externalisation of migration management," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 279441, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    4. Tukiainen, Janne & Blesse, Sebastian & Bohne, Albrecht & Giuffrida, Leonardo M. & Jääskeläinen, Jan & Luukinen, Ari & Sieppi, Antti, 2024. "What are the priorities of bureaucrats? Evidence from conjoint experiments with procurement officials," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    5. Joop Adema & Lasha Chargaziia & Yvonne Giesing & Sarah Necker & Panu Poutvaara, 2025. "What Drives Refugees’ Return After Conflict?," RFBerlin Discussion Paper Series 2565, ROCKWOOL Foundation Berlin (RFBerlin).
    6. Avidit Acharya & Jens Hainmueller & Yiqing Xu, 2026. "Learning Preferences from Conjoint Data: A Structural Deep Learning Approach," Papers 2604.10845, arXiv.org.
    7. Liza G. Steele & Laird Gallagher, 2025. "Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Refugees During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the U.S," Journal of International Migration and Integration, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 2593-2627, December.
    8. Henrik S Christensen & Marco S La Rosa & Kimmo Grönlund, 2020. "How candidate characteristics affect favorability in European Parliament elections: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Finland," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 519-540, September.
    9. Becker, Malte & Krüger, Finja & Heidland, Tobias, 2022. "Country, culture or competition: What drives attitudes towards immigrants in Sub-Saharan Africa?," Kiel Working Papers 2224, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    10. Sam Sims & Clare Routledge, 2025. "Understanding the decision (not) to become a teacher: evidence from survey experiments with undergraduates in the UK and US," CEPEO Working Paper Series 25-15, UCL Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities, revised Nov 2025.
    11. Yoshiaki Kubo & Isamu Okada, 2022. "COVID-19 health certification reduces outgroup bias: evidence from a conjoint experiment in Japan," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    12. Gallagher,Allen William Andrew & Ruiz,Isabel & Vargas Silva,Carlos Ivan, 2022. "Policy Preferences in Response to Large Migration Inflows," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10055, The World Bank.
    13. Soheil Sabriseilabi & James Williams & Mahmoud Sadri, 2022. "How Does Race Moderate the Effect of Religion Dimensions on Attitudes toward the Death Penalty?," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-11, April.
    14. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    15. Liam F. Beiser-McGrath & Thomas Bernauer & Jaehyun Song & Azusa Uji, 2021. "Understanding public support for domestic contributions to global collective goods," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 1-20, June.
    16. Knotz, Carlo Michael & Gandenberger, Mia Katharina & Fossati, Flavia & Bonoli, Giuliano, 2021. "Public attitudes toward pandemic triage: Evidence from conjoint survey experiments in Switzerland," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    17. Fumiya Uchikoshi & Hirofumi Miwa & Yoshikuni Ono, 2025. "Gendered Expectations for College Applications: Experimental Evidence from a Gender Inegalitarian Education Context," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 66(5), pages 1-27, August.
    18. Janne Tukiainen & Ilona Lahdelma & Mika Maliranta & Risto Rönkkö & Juho Saari, 2024. "The TikTok factor: Young voters and the support for the populist right," Working Papers 351, Työn ja talouden tutkimus LABORE, The Labour Institute for Economic Research LABORE.
    19. Akira Igarashi & Yoshinobu Kano & Hirofumi Miwa, 2025. "ChatGPT versus humans in judging discriminatory scenarios: experimental evidence from a Japanese context," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    20. Lindgren, Oskar & Jagers, Sverker C. & Lindvall, Daniel, 2026. "The impact of policy design on opposition to restrictive climate policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:102:y:2021:i:4:p:1931-1946. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.