A new study pub­lished in the American Journal of Political Science inves­ti­gates the con­nec­tion between death penal­ty deci­sions and the prac­tice of elect­ing judges. ​“The analy­sis pre­sent­ed con­sid­ers pub­lic opinion’s influ­ence on the com­po­si­tion of courts … and its influ­ence on judge votes in cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment cas­es. In elec­tive state supreme courts, pub­lic sup­port for cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment influ­ences the ide­o­log­i­cal com­po­si­tion of those courts and judge will­ing­ness to uphold death sen­tences. Notably, pub­lic sup­port for cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment has no mea­sur­able effect on non­elec­tive state supreme courts.”

The authors not­ed that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor allud­ed to the fear that judges may bend to pub­lic opin­ion rather than fol­low the rule of law when she said, “[I]f a state has a prob­lem with judi­cial impar­tial­i­ty, it is large­ly one the state brought upon itself by con­tin­u­ing the prac­tice of pop­u­lar­ly elect­ing judges.” (quot­ing Republican Party of Minnesota, et al. V. White). The research­es con­clud­ed that in states ​“where supreme court judges face elec­tion, and where these judges must ren­der cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment deci­sions, stronger sup­port for the death penal­ty pro­duces sig­nif­i­cant­ly more con­ser­v­a­tive judges and…these con­ser­v­a­tive judges are more like­ly to uphold cap­i­tal con­vic­tions.”
(P. Brace & B. Boyea, ​“State Public Opinion, the Death Penalty, and the Practice of Electing Judges,” 52 American Journal of Political Science 360 (April 2008)). See Studies and Arbitrariness.

Citation Guide