Prosecutorial Language, Moral Disengagement, and Sentencing Outcomes in Real Capital Murder Cases

Abstract

Language reflecting moral disengagement has been shown to influence juries in mock juror studies; however, little to no research has examined this in actual murder cases. Prosecutors play an influential role in capital murder cases during both the guilt phase and sentencing phase of the trial. If a defendant is found guilty, jurors must then decide the appropriate sentence, which can be difficult when the penalties include death versus life without parole. Self-report and mock trial studies suggest that jurors may engage in moral disengagement methods (e.g., moral justification, dehumanizing language) that allow them to distance themselves from the decision. Capital murder trial transcripts were analyzed to investigate the influence of moral disengagement variables on sentencing (“death” versus “life without the possibility of parole”). Results indicate that arguments for future dangerousness were positively correlated with death penalty verdicts, although other types of moral disengagement language strategies were not. An additional linguistic strategy was included, which investigated language that might garner empathy for the victim. This was also positively correlated with a death penalty verdict. This analysis of capital murder trial transcripts reveals differences in influential moral displacement strategies than mock juror studies suggest.