IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v84y2003i4p753-770.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Raising Considerations: Public Opinion and the Fair Application of the Death Penalty

Author

Listed:
  • Gregg R. Murray

Abstract

Objectives. A major justification for capital punishment is its perceived public support, yet common measures of public opinion do not capture the complexity of death penalty attitudes. This research, first, examines the stability of attitudes regarding the fair application of the death penalty when those attitudes are expressed within the context of an enlarged pool of considerations about its administration and, second, evaluates the directional effect of the considerations on those attitudes. Methods. Data from a national telephone survey that capture the complexity of these attitudes are analyzed using ordered probit estimation. Results. These results indicate substantial instability in attitudes regarding the fair application of capital punishment given the context of more pertinent considerations. Furthermore, within this context respondents tend to indicate that the death penalty is less fairly applied. Conclusion. The justification for capital punishment may rest on oversimplified conceptions of attitudes toward the death penalty and its application.

Suggested Citation

  • Gregg R. Murray, 2003. "Raising Considerations: Public Opinion and the Fair Application of the Death Penalty," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 84(4), pages 753-770, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:84:y:2003:i:4:p:753-770
    DOI: 10.1046/j.0038-4941.2003.08404018.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0038-4941.2003.08404018.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1046/j.0038-4941.2003.08404018.x?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
    ---><---

    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:84:y:2003:i:4:p:753-770. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.