Citation

McGarrell EF, Sandys M. Am. Behav. Sci. 1996; 39(4): 500-513.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1996, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0002764296039004012

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Appellate courts in the United States, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have looked to public opinion and legislative trends to interpret the meaning of "evolving standards of decency" in determining whether capital punishment violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Bowers's spuriousness explanation of public support for capital punishment suggests that lawmakers and appellate judges have misinterpreted public sentiment. Specifically, although the public voices general support for the death penalty, that support vanishes when citizens are given the option of life in prison without possibility of parole coupled with a requirement of work and restitution. This research tests and finds support for Bowers's explanation with data from a sample of Indiana citizens. In addition, the study extends the model by presenting data from Indiana legislators showing that indeed lawmakers do misread the opinions of their constituents on this important issue.