Opinion ID: 1407576
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Goldberg Study [64]

Text: Dr. Faye Goldberg (now Girsh) undertook a controlled study of the relationship between conviction proneness and attitudes toward capital punishment in 1966-1967. The subjects in this study were 200 undergraduate students enrolled in colleges in Atlanta, Georgia. One hundred of the students were white, one hundred were black. Eighty-four were female, one hundred sixteen were male. The subject/jurors were given a written questionnaire, containing short (four or five sentence) descriptions of each of sixteen simulated criminal cases. The 16 cases depicted primarily murder charges, and all were cases in which the death penalty could be given in most jurisdictions which [had] the death penalty. ( Goldberg, supra, 5 Harv.Civ. Rights-Civ.Lib.L.Rev. at p. 59.) The described cases varied in severity, heinousness, justification, and amount of evidence available. The subject/jurors were instructed to decide the issue of guilt or innocence on the basis of the evidence summarized in the written description; no descriptions of the law were given. The subject/jurors were told to decide which of the following four categories of guilt or innocence they felt was appropriate: guilty of first degree murder, guilty of a lesser offense, not guilty by reason of insanity, and not guilty for lack of evidence. In addition, as this study occurred prior to Witherspoon, the subject/jurors were asked, Do you have conscientious scruples against the use of the death penalty? (Cf., post, fns. 72, 79.) Dr. Girsh found that subject/jurors without conscientious scruples against the death penalty voted guilty on some crimes (i.e., first degree murder or a lesser offense) in 75 percent of their votes, whereas subject/jurors with such scruples voted guilty in 69 percent. The 6 percent difference between the groups was found to be marginally significant. (P = .08.) Dr. Girsh also found that subject/jurors with conscientious scruples voted not guilty by reason of insanity in 14 percent of the votes, compared with 9 percent for the subject/jurors without such scruples. This finding was statistically significant. (P = .03.) Dr. Girsh concluded that her results do tend to corroborate the trends found in the studies by Dr. Zeisel and Dr. Wilson (see post ). ( Goldberg, supra, 5 Harv.Civ. Rights-Civ.Lib.L.Rev. at p. 69.) As Dr. Girsh testified, her study did not employ sophisticated methodology, [65] but the purpose of her study was to try[] to find out if there was any reason to believe that this relationship existed at all.... [W]e were trying to first tap the most superficial level of the relationship to see if there was anything. Based on the data from her study, Dr. Girsh concluded there may be a basis ... to think that when people with conscientious scruples against the death penalty are removed from the jury ... the resulting juries [may be] more likely to convict.