Mitigating evidence in capital trials provides reasons for a life, rather than death, sentence. Research suggests that mitigation challenges jurors. We contribute to this area by analyzing federal verdict forms in capital cases, which allow jurors to write in their own mitigating factors, providing a direct, rare window onto their mitigation considerations. We use 205 forms from 171 juries to examine the frequency and content of these “write-ins,” using a sentencing theory typically applied to judges, Focal Concerns Theory. We find that four of every 10 juries prompted to offer their own mitigation do so, producing 149 unique write-ins, the majority of which introduces mitigation topics that differ from those listed on the verdict form. Surprisingly, jurors are less likely to offer write-in mitigators in cases involving White defendants than others, even after controlling for support for other mitigating factors and for aggravating factors, which also predict write-ins. Jurors' write-ins reflect a traditional sentencing concern for blameworthiness, and consistent with Focal Concerns Theory, attention to the practical consequences of punishment. Jurors also offered concerns we term “procedural fairness.” Results indicate that juries' views are patterned in ways that are similar, but not identical, to judges' sentencing concerns.

中文翻译：

---

陪审员评估缓解的焦点问题：来自联邦首都陪审团形式的证据

死刑审判中的减轻证据为判处无期而不是死刑提供了理由。研究表明，缓解挑战陪审员。我们通过分析死刑案件中的联邦裁决表格来为这一领域做出贡献，这些表格允许陪审员写下他们自己的缓解因素，为他们的缓解考虑提供一个直接的、罕见的窗口。我们使用来自 171 个陪审团的 205 份表格来检查这些“写入”的频率和内容，使用通常适用于法官的量刑理论，即焦点关注理论。我们发现，每 10 个陪审团中有 4 个被提示提供自己的缓解措施，产生了 149 份独特的书面意见，其中大部分介绍了与裁决表上列出的不同的缓解主题。出奇，在涉及白人被告的案件中，陪审员不太可能在涉及白人被告的案件中提供减刑，即使在控制了对其他减刑因素和加重因素的支持后，这些因素也可以预测减刑。陪审员的书面记录反映了对过错的传统量刑关注，并且与焦点关注理论一致，关注惩罚的实际后果。陪审员还提出了我们称之为“程序公平”的担忧。结果表明，陪审团的观点与法官的量刑问题相似，但并不完全相同。注意惩罚的实际后果。陪审员还提出了我们称之为“程序公平”的担忧。结果表明，陪审团的观点与法官的量刑问题相似，但并不完全相同。注意惩罚的实际后果。陪审员还提出了我们称之为“程序公平”的担忧。结果表明，陪审团的观点与法官的量刑问题相似，但并不完全相同。