Geographic arbitrariness in capital punishment: Death as an inhabited institution (Record no. 531120)
[ view plain ]
| 000 -LEADER | |
|---|---|
| fixed length control field | 02355nam a22001457a 4500 |
| 008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION | |
| fixed length control field | 250725b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d |
| 100 ## - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME | |
| Personal name | Ulmer, Jeffery T. Zajac, Gary and Rodriguez, Ashley E. |
| 245 ## - TITLE STATEMENT | |
| Title | Geographic arbitrariness in capital punishment: Death as an inhabited institution |
| 260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. (IMPRINT) | |
| Place of publication, distribution, etc | American Sociological Review |
| 300 ## - PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION | |
| Extent | 90(2), Apr, 2025: p.318-348 |
| 520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC. | |
| Summary, etc | The U.S. criminal legal system is highly localized. This reality extends to what U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer called “geographic arbitrariness” in the implementation of the death penalty. The inhabited institutions perspective, augmented with concepts from Weber’s sociology of law, frames our analysis of how a local process that is not arbitrary—prosecutors’ interpretations of statutory aggravating factors—result in geographic arbitrariness in the aggregate, in which defendants’ exposure to the death penalty is strongly conditioned by locality. We utilize data coded from prosecutors’ office case files and court docket transcripts, as well as interviews with current and former District Attorneys and Assistants in Pennsylvania, to illuminate prosecutorial death penalty decisions and their interpretations of statutory aggravating factors. Our analysis is driven by two sets of questions. First, how do prosecutors differ in the filing of specific aggravating factors in the face of similar factual circumstances? Second, how do prosecutors evaluate the meaning of the aggravators and decide whether to seek the death penalty? We show that prosecutors inhabit death penalty statutory law by (1) defining statutory aggravators, drawing comparisons and contrasts from experience with prior cases; (2) making strategic assessments of how local juries will view evidence; (3) normatively evaluating individual cases, offenders, and—crucially—victims; and (4) subjectively evaluating the legal value of aggravating factors themselves. Because ambiguity in statutory aggravators necessitates differing interpretations by prosecutors, death penalty law ensures geographic arbitrariness.- Reproduced https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00031224241298008 |
| 650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM | |
| Topical term or geographic name as entry element | Death penalty, Prosecutors, Sentencing, Law, Courts, Institutions. |
| 9 (RLIN) | 55760 |
| 773 ## - HOST ITEM ENTRY | |
| Main entry heading | American Sociological Review |
| 942 ## - ADDED ENTRY ELEMENTS (KOHA) | |
| Item type | Articles |
| Withdrawn status | Lost status | Source of classification or shelving scheme | Damaged status | Not for loan | Permanent location | Current location | Date acquired | Serial Enumeration / chronology | Barcode | Date last seen | Koha item type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indian Institute of Public Administration | Indian Institute of Public Administration | 2025-07-25 | 90(2), Apr, 2025: p.318-348 | AR136831 | 2025-07-25 | Articles |