STUDIES: Electoral Pressures Influence Judges’ Decisions in Capital Cases

“[E]lectoral pres­sures influ­ence judges’ deci­sions in cap­i­tal cas­es,” accord­ing to a new report by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. That report, How Judicial Elections Impact Criminal Cases, sur­veyed numer­ous empir­i­cal stud­ies that had reviewed the effects of judi­cial elec­tions on out­comes in crim­i­nal cas­es. The vast major­i­ty of crim­i­nal defen­dants — includ­ing cap­i­tal defen­dants — face elect­ed judges at tri­al and on appeal. According to the report, 87% of state judges face elec­tion, and 94% of felony con­vic­tions are tried in state courts. The report found that ​“the pres­sures of upcom­ing re-elec­tion and reten­tion cam­paigns make judges more puni­tive toward defen­dants in crim­i­nal cas­es” in gen­er­al, but that these pres­sures also pro­duced iden­ti­fi­able effects in death penal­ty cas­es. First, elec­toral pres­sures affect­ed tri­al judges in cap­i­tal cas­es. ​“In Alabama, with its unique sys­tem of judi­cial over­ride, tri­al judges are more like­ly to impose death over jury ver­dicts of life impris­on­ment dur­ing elec­tion years,” the report said. The report also found that ​“appel­late judges fac­ing re-elec­tion are more inclined to affirm death sen­tences, and less inclined to dis­sent from orders affirm­ing them.” Referencing a recent Reuters study, the report said states with elect­ed supreme court jus­tices had sub­stan­tial­ly low­er rates of revers­ing death sen­tences on appeal than states with appoint­ed jus­tices. Justices who ran against oth­er can­di­dates for office were the least like­ly to vote to reverse a death sen­tence (11%), and those who faced reten­tion elec­tions reversed only 15% of the time. Justices who were appoint­ed were com­par­a­tive­ly more like­ly to vote to reverse death sen­tences (26%). The report con­cludes, ​“Empirical stud­ies across states, court lev­el, and method of elec­tion find that prox­im­i­ty to re-elec­tion makes judges more puni­tive — more like­ly to impose longer sen­tences, affirm death sen­tences, and even over­ride life sen­tences to impose death. Without reform, terms of incar­cer­a­tion and exe­cu­tions will con­tin­ue to be deter­mined, in part, by the decision-maker’s prox­im­i­ty to re-election.”

(K. Berry, ​“How Judicial Elections Impact Criminal Cases,” The Brennan Center for Justice, 2015.) See Studies and Arbitrariness.