Do politics affect death penalty sentencing?
Author: Stewart J. H. McCann; Cape Breton University
Goal: This study attempts to apply Authoritarian Dynamic Theory to the topic of death penalty in the United States. Many people have looked into the evaluation of death penalty sentences and executions based upon the crime committed, defendant’s race, and/or the racial dichotomy of the relationships between the offender and victim. This takes a different route; evaluative the institution of the death penalty based upon the amount of “threat” that is implicated on a conservative voting base.
Background Information: The term “threat” refers to the changing dynamics of the majority political ideologies of a given population. For example, we just saw a political swing in the state of Georgia in the 2020 election from a Republican voting state to a Democratic voting state. In this instance, the conservative party (i.e., Republicans), felt a “threat” on their ideologies. This is the premise that this article attempts to evaluate, and whether it has an effect on the rate in which the death penalty is instituted.
Research Methodology: Data for this research was evaluated from 1977 to 2004, with controls for state population and years with a death penalty provision (controlling for the states where there is, or is not, a death penalty). Hierarchical multiple regression was utilized to test the prediction that state conservativism (defined by 2004 presidential election results) would be associated with higher frequencies of death penalty sentences and executions.
Findings: The previous hypothesis was supported by the research, indicating that those areas that had a higher conservative voting base in the 2004 presidential election were more likely to institute death penalty sentences and executions. The level of state “threat” (defined earlier) was not associated with the level of death penalty institution. This means that there will be a higher likelihood of death penalties in conservative states, in comparison to more progressive or liberal voting bases.
What does it mean?: This week’s blog is slightly different in expressing what type of findings we have. McCann’s study was slightly exploratory in nature, but with solid statistical procedures so that the results would be grounded and strong in nature. I guess the best way to go about this section this week is to ask: “Why is this important?”. In testing what type of area, in terms of their political affiliation, would be more apt to institute death sentences in the court of law, we are now able to predict which states or jurisdictions are going to implement death sentences at a higher rate compared to others. The results of this article state that the more conservative the jurisdiction is by voting base, in conjunction with the amount of “threat” they feel from opposing political ideologies, the more likely they are to implement death sentences. This can help to assist advocacy efforts for organizations that oppose the death penalty in an effort to protect civil rights. Clearly, this attempts to confirm the suspicions and stereotypes of today’s American culture revolving around how conservative thinkers are more punitive with regards to justice. South Carolina exemplifies this trend. Indeed, the state has voted conservatively in every presidential election since 1980, has a higher than average non-white population (~65% in South Carolina compared to ~60% nationally according to the US Census), and has the 7th highest violent crime rate in the country.
Tell us what you think in the comments section below!!!
