NCJ Number
137717
Journal
Journal of Criminal Justice Volume: 20 Issue: 3 Dated: (1992) Pages: 227-236
Date Published
1992
Length
10 pages
Annotation
This study attempted to determine what people really mean when they support the death penalty for retributive reasons.
Abstract
The various meanings given to retribution probably account for disagreements over its influence on death penalty opinions and help to explain why the acceptability of retribution as a justification for capital punishment is contested. Cottingham (1979) identified nine theories of punishment that have been labeled retributive. Most of the theories have the notion of retribution as repayment. The subjects in this study were 215 students (53 percent male, 47 percent female, 71 percent white, and 29 percent black). Seventy-three percent of the subjects favored the death penalty for some people convicted of first-degree murder; 20 percent were opposed, and 7 percent were undecided. The death penalty opinions of the subjects were comparable to the opinions of the U.S. population as measured by recent Gallup polls. Ordinary least squares regression was used to determine the relationship between death penalty opinion (the dependent variable) and each of the retribution items, race, and gender (the independent variables). Two types of retribution were revealed as reasons for favoring capital punishment: "vindictive revenge" and "revenge-utilitarianism". Subjects clearly subscribed to the vindictive revenge conception, one characterized by a strong emotional or visceral component. 5 tables, 6 notes, and 32 references