Date of Project

4-7-2026

Document Type

Honors Thesis

School Name

College of Arts and Sciences

Department

Sociology

Major Advisor

Dr. Heather Pruss

Second Advisor

Dr. Kathryn West

Abstract

This study examines how gender influences mock jurors’ receptiveness to aggravating and mitigating evidence in capital trials. Drawing on prior research that highlights the critical role of mitigation in reducing death sentences and persistent gender differences in death penalty attitudes, this study addresses a gap in the literature by analyzing how gender shapes responses to specific types of evidence rather than general support for capital punishment. Using a quantitative survey of 209 participants, the research analyzes Likert-scale responses measuring how various aggravating and mitigating factors impact sentencing preferences. Results indicate a weak but consistent relationship between gender and receptivity to aggravators and mitigators. Women were somewhat more receptive to certain mitigating factors while men were more responsive to aggravating factors, especially those emphasizing the severity or brutality of the crime. Although most relationships were statistically weak and not broadly generalizable, the findings reveal meaningful patterns in how specific types of aggravating and mitigating evidence are interpreted across genders. The study highlights that mitigation remains a powerful tool in capital sentencing, although gender may not be the strongest predictor in how jurors perceive evidence. These findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of juror decision-making and suggest practical insights for defense strategies and jury selection.

Download

Share

COinS