IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Who's the Fairest in the Land? Analysis of Judge and Jury Death Penalty Decisions

  • Radha Iyengar
Registered author(s):

    The fairness of the application of the death penalty has come under question in recent years, amid the growing number of minority death row inmates. In this study, the Supreme Court decision Ring v. Arizona, which changed the death penalty sentencing phase in 13 states, is used to identify the different case and defendant characteristics that affect the decision to apply the death penalty. Using data that link homicide incidents to defendant trial outcomes in states with the death penalty, estimates suggest that juries both are more likely to apply the death penalty than judges and are more influenced by the age and race of the victim and the offender. These results raise concerns over the recent shift from judicial- to jury-based sentencing in capital cases.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by University of Chicago Press in its journal The Journal of Law and Economics.

    Volume (Year): 54 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 3 ()
    Pages: 693 - 722

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/661565
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/661565. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Journals Division)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.