Comparing expert versus general public rationale for death penalty support and opposition: Is expert perspective on capital punishment consistent with “disciplined retention”?

Abstract

The author compared American criminologists’ stated reasons for death penalty support or opposition with those of the general public as reported by Gallup pollsters. While experts were overwhelmingly more likely to oppose capital punishment, the rationale for opposition or support were largely comparable for both groups, albeit with some potentially informative differences. As is the case with the general public, the most common reasons for experts' opposition are moral beliefs, concerns about system errors, and the unfair application of the death penalty. Similarly, among the small minority of experts who expressed (often qualified) support for the death penalty, the favored rationale is simple retributive justice—exactly as is the case with the general public. The results show that, not only is opposition to the death penalty among experts not absolute, but the underlying rationale of expert dissenters is arguably a partial bridge to greater public-expert symbiosis on this highly contentious and divisive issue. The radical “newsmaking criminology” contribution of these findings and their ramifications is that the entirety of expert perspective is arguably as consistent with disciplined retention of the death penalty as it is with strict abolition. Future research could reveal even more expert sympathy for retributive thinking, and thus greater affinity with public views, than might be assumed.