In this study the Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research (CSSPPR) measured the opinions and attitudes of adult Missouri residents regarding the death penalty. The questionnaire was developed using instruments from previous death penalty studies and modified to measure the influence of attitudes regarding the death penalty on voting behavior and the importance of various aspects of justice.

Between August 30 and October 13, 1999, a random sample of 1,000 adults residing in Missouri were interviewed by telephone. The sample was acquired from Survey Sampling, Inc. which used a random-digit dialing methodology. This random generation technique allows inclusion of residents with unlisted phone numbers and provides a representative sample of households in Missouri. Respondents were screened to verify age and residence eligibility.

Other steps taken to insure the quality of this poll include:

1. Testing and editing experimental versions of the questionnaire to increase clarity and reliability of each question;

2. Participating in an intensive training session by each interviewer;

3. Periodic monitoring of interviews by social science Ph.D.s;

4. Daily review of work and interviewing procedures and results by Center staff;

5. Calling during times established in previous studies to provide the most representative sample;

6. Making up to five call-backs for each phone number sampled to avoid biasing the sample toward the more easily accessible residents; and

7. Using special "screens" to insure a representative proportion of males and females are interviewed. Because of these precautions, these 1000 respondents should accurately represent the population of adults residing in Missouri.

For the overall response distributions of the following questionnaire data, the responses will vary by less than 3.2 % from the actual population values at the 95% confidence level. For example, 78% of the sample said they are to some degree in favor of the death penalty. So we can be 95% sure that the actual percent of Missouri residents in favor of the death penalty is between 74.8% and 81.2%. For cross tabulation tables that analyze smaller portions of the sample by dividing it into various demographic subcategories such as race and income, the confidence intervals will be considerably wider.

In the detailed analysis following, the presentation is formatted to represent the actual questionnaire. The results are presented in the same order as the questions were asked. A copy of the questionnaire is included in the appendix. The bivariate analysis section contains graphs illustrating the strongest relevant relationships between the survey items and demographic characteristics of the respondents. All of these relationships are statistically significant to at least the .01 level of significance. Inother words, there is a 99% probability the relationship exists in the population.

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Summary for Response to Questionnaire Items:

The data show that the strong general support for the death penalty in Missouri erodes when alternatives are offered. Further, less than one-third of Missourians who favor the death penalty favor it for all convicted murderers. Most respondents preferring the death penalty for convicted murderers conveyed a need to use the punishment with various levels of discretion. The most popular alternative to the death penalty is life in prison with no possibility of parole. The additional penalty of restitution, requiring that convicted murderers work in prison in order to compensate the victim's family for their emotional and material loss, had little effect in swaying proponents of the death penalty. Many of the respondents asked how restitution would be structured into the prison system or whether it was Constitutional, suggesting that doubt regarding the feasibility of mandating restitution was one source of lack of support for the alternative.

The data on how a congressperson replacing the death penalty with life without parole would affect voting patterns suggest that capital punishment is not a litmus test for voters in favor of capital punishment. Although at least 46% of respondents chose capital punishment for convicted murderers over other alternatives, only 35% said their state senator or representative voting to replace capital punishment with life without parole would make them less likely to vote for that congressperson. On the other hand, a congressperson's support for replacing the death penalty apparently has a strong effect on how persons opposed to capital punishment would vote. The same percentage of respondents (22%) who said they opposed the death penalty for convicted murderers said they would be more likely to vote for a congressperson that replaced the death penalty with life without parole.

Centerfor Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

The data indicate that 63% of the respondents believe making sure the accused is guilty should be the most important goal of justice. This high level of concern that the defendant is guilty, as well as the strong influence on opinions of the death penalty that some persons executed are later found to be innocent, addresses the irreversible nature of capital punishment. Making sure the perpetrator doesn't repeat the crime was the second most frequently cited most important goal of'justice, followed by making the perpetrator suffer. Both of these goals are served both by capital punishment and life in prison without parole, though some may feel capital punishment is the more reliable alternative. Compensating the victims, or victim's family in the case of murder, was the least cited most important aspect ofjustice. This is commensurate with weak support for restitution as an alternative to the death penalty among supporters of capital punishment.

Support for giving the judge the option of imposing the death penalty when the jury is unwilling to do so (60%) was unusually high amidst majority support for alternatives to the death penalty. However, strong support for discriminate use of the death penalty, with 35% favoring imposing capital punishment on most convicted murderers and 3 5% on only some, suggests that respondents were reacting to perceptions that juries are more susceptible to factors of prejudice and sentimentality, making them less capable of a rational decision. Recent high-profile cases such as O.J. Simpson, where accusations of demagoguery and jury tampering created widespread criticism of the verdict, may have left many with the lingering perception that judges should be able to override jury decisions.

The data on the degree to which popular reasons to oppose the death penalty affected respondents' own opinions on the death penalty show that 82% have at least some concern that innocent people are executed. High levels of concern in this area may be driven by recent advancements in forensic science, particularly in the area of genetics. These advancements are increasing the number of convicted felons, some after serving lengthy prison stays, which are subsequently proven innocent. High profile media stories of these miscarriages ofjustice may be fueling increasing concern for death row inmates.

That the death penalty is disproportionately imposed on the poor and minorities was the second most commonly cited reason that affects respondents' opinions suggests a perception that a disproportionate number of poor and minority defendants are wrongfully executed. Less than half of respondents said their opinions on the death penalty were to any degree influenced by moral or religious reasons, that some victims' families were against execution or that the death penalty costs the taxpayers more money than life without parole.

Support for a three-year moratorium on capital punishment to study its implementation and effects was similar to that of alternatives to the death penalty. A moratorium would allow research into most of the concerns cited for opposing the death penalty. These include studies on the number of innocent persons executed, disproportionate imposition on minorities and the poor, objections to execution from the victim's family and relative costs of executing convicted murderers compared to life without parole. That a moratorium would address and clarify most objections to the death penalty explains strong support for implementing such legislation.

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Bivariate Analysis Summary:

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

The bivariate analysis allows the reader to discern how differences of opinion compare between the various demographic groups. It also shows how opinions expressed on one survey item are related to opinions expressed on another. Careful analysis of these data can provide insight into why people may hold varying opinions regarding the death penalty. The percentage estimates in the opening univariate analysis, which looked at the overall percentage estimates for the survey items, had a maximum margin of error of 3.2%. Because the bivariate estimates in this section are for groups within the sample, the margin of error for most of these estimates range from 4.5% to 10%, depending on the size of the group. The estimates for Hispanic-Americans and Asian-Americans had the highest potential for error of around 15%. Therefore, conclusions for these two ethic groups are less reliable.

General opinions regarding the death penalty varied significantly by race, voting frequency, sex, residential region and level of urbanization. A higher proportion of white respondents favored the death penalty than non-white respondents. The lowest level of support for the death penalty was found among African-American respondents. Support among Asian- and Hispanic-American respondents was somewhere between these two extremes, but the relatively higher margin of error for these groups makes it risky to infer this to the population.

The data on general opinion of the death penalty by voting behavior showed few consistent trends. About the same percent of people who say the never or rarely vote support the death penalty as those who say the often or always vote. The most consistent trends are among voting respondents. The more often respondents reported voting, the more likely they were to say they were either strongly in favor or strongly opposed to the death penalty. This suggests that frequent voters tend to hold stronger convictions either for or against the death penalty, and that the death penalty is a critical issue for them.

In interpreting the data on frequency of voting, it is important to consider the validity of this response. It is hypothesized that certain self-report questionnaire items have what social scientists call "social desirability." The question may have an answer that is politically correct or would paint the person in a positive light. The voter participation question may have been the item most subject to this effect. Most people want to be perceived as a good citizen, and good citizenship requires civic participation in the voting process. It may be stigmatic for some respondents to admit they do not vote. Voter participation statistics derived fi7om actual counts at the voting polls indicate only about half of those eligible to vote do so at any given election. Seventy-eight percent of the sample said the either always or usually vote. Though not conclusive, this discrepancy suggests that some respondents may have exaggerated the extent of their voting behavior. Therefore, conclusions from the bivariate analysis by voting behavior should be made with an added degree of uncertainty.

Females tended to exhibit less support for the death penalty than males. A smaller percentage of females say they generally supported the death penalty compared to males. Further, females were more likely to take the more tempered opinion of being somewhat opposed or somewhat in favor of the death penalty, whereas the males were more likely to be strongly opposed or strongly in favor. This suggests that females' opinions are more likely to be mitigated by the concerns and criticism of the opposing

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

faction. Apparently, some factor is making them less likely to make a strong commitment one way or the other.

The variation in support for the death penalty by geographic region appears to be dominated by the level of urbanism. Not only did highly urbanized counties show a significantly lower level of support for the death penalty, but regions in Missouri where support for the death penalty was relatively high were those with few or no large cities. A variety of characteristics of the urban environment may be influencing higher levels of opposition to the death penalty including higher proportions of minority residents, women and persons with liberal political ideologies.

Among respondents who said they were in favor of the death penalty, women and respondents who vote less frequently were more likely to favor discriminate imposition of the death penalty. Discriminate use of the death penalty implies that mitigating factors such as the certainty of guilt, motive, age or sex of the convicted murderer and degree of cooperation with the criminal justice system should be considered in deciding whether a convicted murderer should get death or some less severe sentence. The data suggest that males and persons who say they always vote are less likely to favor these considerations when deciding the appropriate sentence.

The bivariate analysis for which penalty respondents felt was most appropriate for convicted murderers was congruent with that of general support for the death penalty. African-American, female and urban respondents were more likely to choose life without parole over the death penalty for convicted murderers. The analysis by religious preference yielded some interesting findings. Catholic respondents exhibit some of the lowest levels of support for the death penalty. This is not surprising given the political activism of prominent Catholic organizations in Missouri to abolish the death penalty. The fact that conservative Protestants showed similarly low levels of support for the death penalty was not as intuitive. Conservative religious groups are more typically aligned with conservative political policies, whereas the conservative Protestants appear to be more aligned with the liberal stance against the death penalty. These data suggest that the death penalty is possibly being associated with or influenced by a conservative political ideology. One of the more obvious possibilities is the abortion issue, of which conservative Protestants are overwhelmingly pro-life. Recent high-profile media stories of condemned prisoners being vindicated, either before or after their execution date, may be influencing some pro-life proponents to sympathize with this concern and support a pro-life policy for convicted murderers.

The data measuring how a congressperson voting to replace the death penalty with life without parole suggests that some respondents' preference for the death penalty was not strong enough to influence their voting behavior. Although 49% of white respondents said they preferred the death penalty to either life without parole or 25 years prison before possibility of parole, only 37% said their congressperson voting to replace the death penalty with life without parole would make them less likely to vote for that person. Similarly, while 23% of African-American respondents said they preferred the death penalty to less severe sentences, only 17% said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate that replaced the death penalty. A similar relationship exists for those who prefer prison to a death sentence. Only some of those who prefer prison to the death penalty said they would be more likely to vote for a congressperson who replace the death penalty. This suggests that only one-half to three-quarters of respondents had

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

opinions on the death penalty that were strong enough to influence preference for a particular candidate. Overall, 43% of respondents said their congressperson voting to replace the death penalty would not affect their support of that candidate one way or the other.

The data showed that respondents from rural counties in Missouri were more likely to say making the perpetrator suffer as much or more than the victim was the most important goal of justice. Respondents from urban counties were more likely to say the most important goal of justice is making sure the perpetrator doesn't repeat the crime. These sentiments are closely aligned with the urban respondents' preference for life without parole and rural respondents' preference for the death penalty. Arguably, sitting on death row for several years before finally being put to death, especially if the method is electrocution, maximizes the level of suffering for the convicted murder. Although execution also insures the perpetrator will not repeat the crime, the urban preference for life without parole also insures the perpetrator will not repeat the crime without imposing the suffering and possibility of executing an innocent person.

The data show concern that innocent people are executed is somewhat dependent on income and voting behavior. The more frequently respondents reported voting, the more likely they were to say this did not at all affect their opinion of the death penalty and less likely to say it affected them a lot. Respondents reporting annual household incomes of more than $40,000 were also more likely to say this did not affect them at all and less likely to say it affected them a lot than respondents with household incomes less than $40,000. It is difficult for many to understand how anyone could have no concern that innocent people are executed. The more obvious interpretation is that these individuals either don't believe persons are falsely convicted of murder or that it occurs infrequently enough to justify the advantages of executing guilty murderers.

Some studies have shown that implementing the death penalty for convicted murderers costs the criminal justice system more money than life in prison, though other studies have disputed this claim. Respondents were asked how affected their opinions were that the death penalty might be costing the taxpayers more money. Differences in level of affect were found between males and females, as well as between the different income categories. A higher proportion of female respondents said it affected them a lot or some, while males were more likely to say it did not affect them at all. Respondents with lower annual household incomes were also more likely to say they were affected by the costs of the death penalty. There is no obvious reason why concern for cost, per se, should be different for males than females. Both males and females have to pay taxes, which is how the cost of execution would most directly affect the typical respondent. Traditionally, taxes have been at least as much concern for the wealthy as the poor, so it is also counterintuitive that the wealthy would be less concerned with cost. It seems more likely that opinions regarding concern for cost are being driven by respondents' preference for the death penalty, since females and lower income respondents tend to oppose the death penalty. Respondents in favor of the death penalty may tend to be committed enough to subordinate concern for any additional costs, while those opposed to the death penalty may tend to embrace all concerns that support abolition regardless of their actual degree of concern.

Concern that more minorities and poor people are executed was higher for minorities, African-Americans in particular, lower income respondents and women.

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

Heightened concern among minorities and lower income respondents can be easily explained by self-interest. They are naturally concerned that the death penalty may be disproportionately imposed on their own group. Most minorities executed are AfricanAmerican, so this effect should be strongest among that particular ethnic minority. 'Minority and lower income respondents were most likely reacting to suspicions that the criminal justice system is biased toward wealthy whites, causing them to report higher levels of concern in this area.

The term minorities, used in the context of the questionnaire item, most often implies racial or ethnic groups with relatively less power and wealth. However, women are the gender minority in that they are the gender group with relatively less power and wealth. Higher levels of concern for minorities and the poor among women may have been the result of the empathy women can experience with other demographic groups with relatively less power and wealth. A second possibility is that the dynamics of rationalizing a concern to support opposition to the death penalty discussed earlier are influencing some women to express more concern than they actually have. Perhaps both of these effects together are responsible for higher levels of reported concern among women.

Higher levels of concern that the victim's family may be against executing the convicted murderer are found among women and lower income respondents. As with higher concerns of the cost of capital punishment among these groups, this relationship is also difficult to explain. Why would the victim's family sentiments be more important for women and lower income respondents? Perhaps the degree of social support these respondents get from family members is higher, making the sentiments of family members more important to them. An alternate explanation would be higher levels of opposition to the death penalty among these groups is influencing them to exaggerate their concern, while mates and upper income respondents commitment to the death penalty is influencing them to suppress their expressed degree of concern.

The degree of concern for religious reasons to oppose the death penalty was, as expected, higher among those claiming a religious affiliation. There was relatively little variation among the different denominational categories. Among the denominational groups, conservative Protestants reported the highest level of religious concern. This is congruent with lower levels of support for the death penalty over life in prison among conservative Protestants compared to the other primary denominational groups. Again, the most likely basis for higher levels of support is the cognitive connections to the rightto-life movement. A religious basis for supporting the right to life for the unborn might be influencing some to apply the principle to convicted murderers.

Higher levels of religious concern among female and lower income respondents can be explained two ways. The difference may be the result of doctrinal differences among females and lower income people. Catholics and Protestants both derive their tenets from Biblical scripture. Some scriptures, such as "an eye for an eye," suggest that God supports the death penalty for those who have committed murder. Others, such as "Vengeance is mine' sayeth the Lord" or "Turn the other cheek," suggest that humans should leave retribution to a higher authority. The variation in concern for religious reasons to oppose the death penalty may reflect different priorities people have for Biblical imperatives. It is also possible that differential support for the death penalty among the sexes and income groups may be influencing expressed religious concern

Center for Social Sciences and Public Policy Research

among some respondents. Another possibility is that opposition to the death penalty by females and minorities is influencing them to exaggerate their religious concerns,

Differential support for a three-year delay on scheduled executions was found among the income categories and levels of voting behavior. These relationships are congruent with support for the death penalty in general. In other words, respondents who strongly support the death penalty also tend to be against a three-year delay.

The analysis of how a congressperson voting to replace the death penalty would affect respondents concluded that it would have a differential affect on respondents depending on whether they were opposed to or in favor of the death penalty. The data indicate that a congressperson voting to replace the death penalty is more likely to influence persons opposed to the death penalty to vote for them than influence persons in favor of the death penalty to vote against them. This suggests that the death penalty is a more important political issue for those opposed to the death penalty than those in favor of the death penalty. Though more of a congressperson's constituents may say they are in favor of the death penalty, a lesser percent of those pro-death penalty constituents will be negatively influenced by a decision to replace the death penalty. A higher percent of the relatively fewer anti-death penalty constituents will be positively influenced by this decision. Exactly how a decision to replace the death penalty would affect the congressperson's overall vote is difficult to assess. If the proportions of those for and against the death penalty were similar, it should result in more votes. If the proportion of voters for the death penalty was significantly higher than the proportion against, it may result in fewer votes.

The relationships between the variables measuring the degree of concern for each reason to oppose the death penalty and preferred extent of imposing the death penalty were consistent. The more concern expressed by the respondent, the more likely they were to prefer imposing the death penalty on only a select group of convicted murderers. The simplest interpretation of these data is that high levels of concern for the disadvantages of the death penalty influenced the respondent to prefer imposing it more selectively. Similarly, low levels of concern influenced the respondent to prefer universal imposition on all convicted murderers.

Conclusions:

This study has shown that Missouri residents are highly divided on the issue of the death penalty. Preference for the death penalty is related to a number of demographic variables including ethnicity, sex, voting frequency, religious affiliation and residential level of urbanism. General preference for the death penalty declines if offered the alternative of life in prison without possibility of parole. High concern for whether the accused murderer is actually guilty suggests that much opposition to the death penalty is rooted in the fear that innocent persons may be executed. The extent to which the death penalty is imposed on convicted murderers is strongly associated with levels of concern for the various arguments against the death penalty. Supporters of the death penalty report relatively little concern that innocent people may be executed. Congresspersons in Missouri who vote to replace the death penalty with life without parole can expect a higher proportion of anti-death penalty constituents to vote for them than the proportion of pro-death penalty constituents to vote against them.

APPENDIX A