Am J Crim Just (2018) 43:861–870

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-017-9429-z

Kentuckian’s Attitudes on Capital

Punishment, 1989–2016

Gennaro F. Vito 1 & George E. Higgins 1 &

Anthony G. Vito 2

Received: 29 November 2017 / Accepted: 5 December 2017 /

Published online: 17 December 2017
# Southern Criminal Justice Association 2017

Abstract Citizens’ attitudes toward the death penalty have been effected by the
availability of life without parole (LWOP). Our analysis focuses upon data from a
representative sample of Kentuckians on death penalty attitudes. The factors influenc-
ing and related to death penalty support and compared to support for LWOP are
considered along with a review of Kentucky survey findings from 1989–2016. The
results reveal consistent support for LWOP over the death penalty. Male Kentucky
residents with a college education were most likely to support life without parole over
capital punishment while male conservatives did not.

Keywords Attitudes toward capital punishment . Life Without Parole

Introduction

Support for the death penalty in the United States is dramatically changing. Recent
national polls on capital punishment support this conclusion. On October 25, 2016, the
Gallup Poll noted that support for the death penalty registered 60% but opposition rose
to its highest point since the Furman v. Georgia (1972) decision – 37% (Death Penalty
Information Center, 2017b). A Pew Center poll recorded a more startling decline in
death penalty support (49%) – the lowest level of support in 45 years (Death Penalty
Information Center, 2017c).

* Gennaro F. Vito
gennaro.vito@louisville.edu

1
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Louisville, 2301 South Third Street, Louisville,
KY 40292, USA
2
Department of Criminology, University of West Georgia, Carrollton, GA, USA
862 Am J Crim Just (2018) 43:861–870

Historically, death penalty support in the U.S. ranged from a high of 80% in 1994 to a low
point of 42% in 1966 (Bohm, 2003, p. 27). Demographic variables play a major role in
determining difference in these levels. An analysis of death penalty polls from 1936 to 1986
identified demographic variations with whites, wealthier people, males, Republicans, and
Westerners more likely to support capital punishment than blacks, poorer people, females,
college graduates, manual laborers, Democrats, Easterners and Southerners (Bohm, 2003, p.
33). Using data from 15 surveys conducted between 1972 through 1988 (N = 23,000+), Fox,
Radelet, and Bonsteel (1991) found that support for capital punishment was consistently
strong among whites, males, married people with children, and the elderly. Republicans and
conservatives overwhelmingly were more supportive than were Democrats, liberals, and
moderates. Another review of death penalty studies determined religion influenced death
penalty support. Protestants and people with negative images of God were more likely to
support capital punishment (Rade, Holland, Jordan, & Desmarais, 2017).
Borg’s (1997:25) work failed to find a difference in support for the death penalty
between southerners and non-southerners. But, region of residence conditioned the effect
of racial prejudice, religious fundamentalism, and political conservatism on support for
capital punishment. Contrasted with non-southerners, natives of the south favored the
death penalty regardless of their education level or income. The Southern proponents of
the death penalty tended to be young, males, and politically conservative people. Keil,
Vito, and Andreescu (1999: 133), in a survey of Kentucky households, found that fear of
crime, Eastern Kentucky residence, Republican voters (less than 20% in the county), total
crime rate, education (estimated as a polynomial curve), gender, race, and age (estimated
as a polynomial effect) all were significant predictors of support for capital punishment.
Racial differences in death penalty support are notable. An analysis of data from the
2004 National Election Survey (NES) explored the reasons for racial differences in death
penalty support. The study determined racist sentiment and core values among Whites
partially accounted for these differences. Whites who believed blacks had not worked hard
enough to succeed strongly supported capital punishment (Buckler, Davila, & Salinas,
2008, p. 163). Whites who held strong views concerning individualism, symbolic patri-
otism and authoritarianism were more likely to accept the legitimacy of capital punish-
ment. For example, the White symbolic patriot was more likely to view crime as a serious
affront to victims and public safety requiring punishment (Buckler et al., 2008, p. 163). A
cross-sectional analysis of poll data from the General Social Survey (1974–2006) revealed
white men registered the strongest level of death penalty support while black men and
women had the weakest amount of support. White women expressed lower levels of
support than white men but higher levels than blacks (Dotson & Carter, 2012, p. 15). In
their analysis of General Social Survey poll data, Unnever and Cullen (2007, p. 147)
concluded Brace remains a master status that defines views on capital punishment.^
Whites with high incomes, who were politically conservative, had confidence in govern-
ment and were religious fundamentalists expressed the highest level of death penalty
support. While indicative of support for capital punishment, these variables did not have
the same impact among African American respondents (Unnever & Cullen, 2007, p. 147).
Citizens express reservations about the administration of the death penalty. A study of
NES and Gallup poll data also found persons who believed the capital sentencing was biased
and innocent people have been executed were most likely to oppose it (Unnever, Cullen, &
Roberts, 2005, pp. 200–204). Results from a survey of Michigan college students found that
information (essays) about a lack of a deterrent effect and the chances of sentencing an
Am J Crim Just (2018) 43:861–870 863

innocent person to death led to a decline in death penalty support – an indication that
knowledge about the administration of the death penalty can change attitudes toward it
(Lambert, Camp, Clarke, & Jiang, 2011, p. 589). Findings from a Texas survey found that,
despite widespread support for the death penalty, a significant proportion of the respondents
lacked confidence in its administration and application. Over 40% of the respondents
expressed concern for its implementation yet maintained their support for capital punish-
ment. Such Bvalue-expressive^ support indicates that citizens have deeply held beliefs to
support capital punishment regardless of their reservations about its accuracy and fairness in
application (Vollum, Longmire, & Buffington-Vollum, 2004, p. 541). In his review of capital
punishment poll data, Bohm (2017, p. 464) notes that a majority of the public appears
receptive to replacing the death penalty with a Bharsh and meaningful alternative such as
LWOP (life without parole).^

Capital Punishment Attitudes in Kentucky

Capital punishment was reinstated in Kentucky on January 1, 1975. Prior to this reintroduc-
tion, 424 executions had been conducted in the state. The first execution after reenactment
was conducted in 1997 and three inmates have been executed since that time. In addition,
one death row inmate (Larry Osborne) was exonerated and released. Two clemencies have
been granted by Kentucky governors. There are 34 inmates presently held on Kentucky’s
death row at the Eddyville penitentiary (Death Penalty Information Center, 2017).

Present Study

The purpose of the present study is two-fold. The first is to provide an assessment of the
consistency the attitudes toward the death penalty over the past 27 years. The second is
to provide an analysis of the correlates of pro-life without parole attitudes over pro-
death penalty attitudes in the most current Kentucky survey. These two purposes will
help gain an understanding of the changes in the death penalty attitudes. Further, they
will inform the literature of life without parole. Overall, neither purpose has been
present in the empirical literature at this point.

Methods

The Survey Research Institute of the Urban Studies Institute at the University of Louisville
conducted the 1989, 1997 and 1999 surveys. In October of 1989, data were collected from a
probability sample of 811 Kentucky households (margin of error = + 2.5%). The 1997
survey was conducted in July and had an N of 709 (margin of error = ± 2.5%). The 1999 had
an N of 909 (margin of error = ± 4.8%). The 2006 survey was conducted by the When the
high cost of using the death penalty was brought up, support for replacing the death penalty
with life without parole became greater. A clear majority of Kentuckians (68%) expressed
strong support for replacing the death penalty with life without parole in light of the high
costs involved. Support for replacing the death penalty with life without parole because of
the costs involved reached 66.3% among death penalty advocates, 14 points higher than
when costs were not considered. The 2016 survey was conducted by the University of
Kentucky’s Survey Research Center and had an N of 684 (margin of error = ± 3.8%). In
864 Am J Crim Just (2018) 43:861–870

addition to using all of the surveys for comparative purposes, we used the 2016 to provide
recent information about the correlates of life without parole.

Measures

The analysis of changing attitudes toward the death penalty in Kentucky from 1989 to
2016, we make a straightforward comparison of the questions on death penalty support
and life without parole.
Considering the correlates of support for the death penalty in the 2016 survey, we use
several measures on the respondent’s view of the most appropriate sentence for first-
degree murder: 1) death penalty, 2) life without parole, 3) life without parole up to for
years, and 4) life without parole up for 20 years. Recoding the sentencing measure resulted
in: death penalty was 0 and life without parole (all three measures combined) as 1.
We use several measures as independent measures. Race is recoded as white (0) and
non-white (1). Biological sex is coded as female (0) and male (1). Employment status is
coded as unemployed (0) and employed (1). Marital status is coded as not married (0)
and married (1). Conservative is coded as not conservative (0) and conservative (1).
College education is coded as no college (0) and some college (1). The respondents’
income is measured as: 1) under $5000–$5000, 2) $5000 - $7500, 3)
$7500–$10,000, 4) $10,000–$12,500, 5) $12,500–$15,000, 6)
$15,000–$20,000, 7) $20,000–$25,000, 8) $25,000–$30,000, 9)
$30,000–$40,000, 10)$40,000–$50,000, 11) $50,000–$70,000, 12)
$70,000–$90,000, 13) $90,000–$120,000, and 14) over $120,000. In addition,
respondents indicated the number of years that they lived in Kentucky. This
item was addressed using an open-ended response.
We also use a measure of good financial standing. The measure includes six items.
The first item is the respondents’ feeling about financial well-being: (1) desperate, (2) at
risk of big financial problems, (3) ok for now, but concerned, and (4) fine, the economy
has worked out. The second item is the respondents’ perception of their general
household financial condition: (1) in crisis, (2) at risk or just getting by for now, (3)
stable with no big concern, and (4) safe with sufficient savings or other income. The
third item is whether the respondents never have things they want in life: (1) complete-
ly, (2) very well, (3) somewhat, (4) very little, and (5) not at all. The fourth item is the
respondents’ perception of just getting by financially: (1) completely, (2) very well, (3)
somewhat, (4) very little, and (5) not at all. The fifth item is whether the respondents’
perception of whether the money have or will have won’t last: (1) completely, (2) very
well, (3) somewhat, (4) very little, and (5) not at all. The sixth item is the respondents’
perception of having control over their finances: (1) always, (2) often, (3) sometimes,
(4) rarely, and (5) never. We recognize that these items are measured using different
scales. We use this as an index of good financial standing, and lower scores indicate
better financial standing. The internal consistency via Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89 and
the average inter-item correlation is 0.57 suggesting acceptable levels for research use.

Analysis Plan

The study attempts to provide two pieces of information. With the comparison of
responses from 1989 to 2016, the study provides information about Kentuckian’s
Am J Crim Just (2018) 43:861–870 865

attitudes on capital punishment - a comparison of the percentages of attitudes over the

past 27 years. Second, for the 2016 survey results, the study provides information about
the correlates of the attitude favoring life without parole.
In the analysis of the 2016 data, we performed analyses using a series of steps. The steps
take into account that the sample was stratified according to the county of the respondent.
The stratification clusters the data. The clustering is accounted for in all analyses using
STATA 14 survey commands. The analysis plan takes place in a series of steps using the
STATA 14 survey commands. In addition, all of the analyses were performed using the
grand weights in the data. The first step presents the descriptive statistics for the sample.
These descriptive statistics, includes the mean and standard deviation and provides an
indication the distribution of the data. The second step provides a cross-tabulation. It
provides information about the biological sex differences in the variable life without parole.
The third step presents the logistic regression analysis. It determines which measures were
correlates of life without parole. The fourth step is a presentation of the biological sex
differences in correlates relating to life without parole. In addition, to determine the statistical
difference between biological sexes and this perception, we use the Brame, Paternoster,
Mazerolle, and Piquero (1998) z-score. This z-score examines the differences between the
coefficients of the biological sexes and this perception. A z-score that is over −2.00 or 2.00
are deemed statistically significant.

Results

Kentucky Death Penalty Attitudes, 1989–2016

A comparison of death penalty attitudes over a 27-year period of polling reveals that
Kentuckians support long-term sentences over capital punishment. Over the five polls,
the average level of death penalty support was 34.4% while the average level for a long
term sentence was 51.8%.
These five survey results over 27 years clearly reveal that the majority of
Kentuckians favor a long-term sentence over the death penalty for convicted murderers.
Policy and decision makers at all levels of government, especially legislators and
criminal justice operatives, should take note of the consistency of these findings as
the people of Kentucky are expressing their opinions clearly (Table 1).
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for the 2016 sample of respondents. Sixty-
four percent (64%) of the respondents reported that life without parole was the more

Table 1 Kentuckian’s Attitudes Toward the Death Penalty – Poll Results

Polling Year 1989 1997 1999 2006 2016a

Death Penalty 39% 37% 29% 28% 39%

Long term sentence 46% 38% 53% 68% 53%
Uncertain 15% 25% 18% 4% 8%

a
In the 2016 survey, long term sentences included Blife in prison with no chance of parole (32.3%),^ Blife in
prison with no chance of parole for 25 years (6.8%),^ Blife in prison with no chance of parole for 20 years
(1.9%),^ and Ba sentence of 20–50 years with the chance of parole (11.9%)^
866 Am J Crim Just (2018) 43:861–870

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics

Variable Mean Std. Dev. Value Frequency

Death Risk 0.71 0.45 0 180

1 461
Race 0.08 0.26 0 625
1 33
Years lived in Kentucky 55.89 34.25
Biological Sex 0.48 0.50 0 464
1 220
Employed 0.47 0.50 0 350
1 319
Income 9.56 3.32
Good Financial Standing 18.29 6.06
Marital Status 0.59 0.49 0 287
1 390
Conservative 0.65 0.48 0 147
1 278
Some College 0.67 0.47 0 225
1 454

appropriate sentence for first-degree murder than the death penalty. Eight percent (8%)
of the sample is non-white. The percentage of males in the sample is 48.36. Over 47%
(47.26%) of the respondents were employed. The mean of the income variable for the
respondents is 9.56 or $30,000 to $40,000. The mean of the variable good financial
standing is 18.29. Over 58% (58.66%) of the respondents were married. Over 65%
(65.44%) percent of the respondents identified themselves as conservatives. More than
67% (67.07%) percent of the respondents had some college education. The respondents
lived in Kentucky for an average of 55.89 years.
Table 3 presents the cross-tabulations between life without parole and sex. Males are
49% less likely than females to have the perception that the appropriate sentence for
first-degree murder is life without parole than the death penalty.
Table 4 presents the survey multivariate logistic regression for the entire sample. Males
are 50.00 less likely to to have the perception that the appropriate sentence for first-degree
murder is life without parole than the death penalty than females (b = −0.69, Odds Ratio =
0.50, Prob = 0.01). Conservatives are 59.00 less likely to report to have the perception that
the appropriate sentence for first-degree murder is life without parole than the death
penalty than non-conservative (b = −0.90, Odds Ratio = 0.41, Prob = 0.00).

Table 3 Cross tabulations for life without parole

Female Male Chi2 p Odds

No 23.74 33.76 4.45 0.05 0.61

Yes 76.26 66.24
Am J Crim Just (2018) 43:861–870 867

Table 4 SVY (Survey) multivariate logistic regression analysis for life without parole

Variable b SE OR Z p value

Biological Sex −0.49 0.29 0.61 −1.71 0.09

Race 0.24 1.06 1.28 0.23 0.82
Years lived in Kentucky 0 0 1 0.98
Employed −0.3 0.26 0.74 −1.17 0.25
Income −0.05 0.06 0.95 −0.82 0.42
Marital Status 0.23 0.31 1.25 0.73 0.47
Good Financial Standing 0.03 0.02 1.04 1.72 0.16
Conservative −1.05 0.26 0.35 −4.06 0.00
College −0.2 0.39 0.82 −0.5 0.62
_cons 1.68 0.65 5.39 2.59 0.01

Table 4 presents the biological sex split sample survey multivariate logistic regres-
sion for the sample. Males that lived in Kentucky more years more likely to to have the
perception that the appropriate sentence for first-degree murder is life without parole
than the death penalty (b = 0.02, Odds Ratio = 1.02, Prob = 0.03). Males that are
conservative are 89% less likely to have the perception that the appropriate sentence
for first-degree murder is life without parole than the death penalty than non-
conservatives (b = −2.20, Odds Ratio = 0.11, Prob = 0.00). Males that have some col-
lege are 3.87 times more likely than males with no college to have the perception that
the appropriate sentence for first-degree murder is life without parole than the death
penalty (b = 1.35, Odds Ratio = 3.87, Prob = 0.01).
With measures having significant links by biological sex, it is important to determine
the difference between the slopes by biological sex. Using the Brame et al. (1998) z-
score, there is a difference between the slopes for the number of years lived in
Kentucky. This indicates that the larger slope is for females, although the female link
with to have the perception that the appropriate sentence for first-degree murder is life
without parole than the death penalty is not significant (z = −2.00, p value = 0.05). The
difference between the slopes for being conservative across the biological sex groups is
statistically different (z = 3.02, p value = 0.00). This suggests that being male has the
larger slope for having the perception that the appropriate sentence for first-degree
murder is life without parole than the death penalty. The difference between the slopes
for having some college across the biological sex groups are statistically different for
having the perception that the appropriate sentence for first-degree murder is life
without parole than the death penalty (z = −2.08, p value = 0.04) (Table 5).

Conclusion

Life without parole has emerged as a viable alternative to the death penalty. Interviews
with LWOP inmates reveal they do not represent a danger to other prisoners and suffer
in a comparable way to death row inmates (Johnson & McGunigall-Smith, 2008).
However, Appleton and Grover (2007, p. 612) argue LWOP compromises human
868 Am J Crim Just (2018) 43:861–870

Table 5 SVY (Survey) biological sex split sample examining correlates of life without parole

Variable OR(0) SE(0) p value OR(1) SE(1) p value Z

Years lived in Kentucky 0.99 0.00 0.15 1.01 0.01 0.22 −2.00
Race 2.89 1.37 0.44 0.57 1.19 0.64 0.90
Employed 0.76 0.26 0.29 0.67 0.49 0.43 0.22
Income 0.94 0.07 0.36 0.94 0.10 0.50 0.00
Marital Status 0.94 0.33 0.85 2.06 0.72 0.32 −0.99
Good Financial Standing 1.03 0.03 0.33 1.03 0.04 0.49 0.00
Conservative 0.42 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.53 0.01 1.12
College 0.43 0.55 0.13 1.55 0.60 0.47 −1.58
_cons 15.51 0.73 0.00 1.76 0.99 0.57 1.77

rights and dignity, negates the capacity for rehabilitation and redemption, and denies all
hope of the possibility of release. Unlike execution, LWOP offers the possibility to
correct errors in sentencing and avoid killing innocent persons.
Our findings parallel the results of previous studies comparing support for the death
penalty versus life without parole. Sandys and McGarrell (1994) found 43% Indiana
legislators favored LWOP and 51% favored LWOP plus restitution as a death penalty
alternative. They also found Indiana residents held a similar opinion (McGarrell & Sandys,
1996). Indeed, the literature on the subject consistently reports respondents have a marked
preference for life without parole over the penalty of death (Bohm, Flanagan, & Harris,
1990; Bowers, Vandiver, & Dugan, 1994; Ellsworth & Gross, 1994; Fox et al., 1991; Moon,
Wright, Cullen, & Pealer, 2000; Vito & Keil, 1998; Zeisel & Gallup, 1989).
In a study of attitudes toward the death penalty for adults and juveniles, a survey of
556 Orange County, CA residents reported over 45% of the respondents felt LWOP
was a possible alternative to capital punishment. The only reported demographic
difference appeared among wealthier death penalty supporters who continued to
endorse capital punishment (Vogel, 2003, p. 272). In a national survey, Wosniak
(2017, p. 231) found persons who believed prisons did not provide a sufficiently harsh
punishment were more likely to favor the death penalty over LWOP. These findings are
unlike the attributes we found to be related to LWOP support. Male Kentucky residents
with a college education (see also Longmire, 1996) were most likely to support life
without parole over capital punishment while male conservatives did not.
As with other state-based surveys, our findings are limited to Kentucky residents.
However, each survey was based upon a representative, randomly selected sample of
Kentuckians. Additional research is required to determine if the results apply to other
states or to the entire country.
These results reinforce the research on how capital sentencing has operated in
Kentucky. An analysis of Kentucky capital sentencing from 2000 to 2010 revealed
that Kentucky juries preferred LWOP over the death penalty in capital cases. Statewide,
jurors sentenced capital offenders to LWOP 23 % of the time (29/123) and sentenced
offenders to death less than 6 % of the time (7/123) (Vito, Higgins, & Vito, 2014, pp.
763–764). Reflecting the survey findings, it appears that life without parole has become
the preferred choice of sentence for capital offenders in Kentucky.
Am J Crim Just (2018) 43:861–870 869

References

Appleton, C., & Grover, B. (2007). The pros and cons of life without parole. The British Journal of
Criminology, 47(4), 597–615.
Bohm, R. M. (2003). American death penalty opinion: Past, present, and future. In J. R. Acker, R. M. Bohm,
& C. S. Lanier (Eds.), America's experiment with capital punishment (pp. 27–54). Durham, NC: Carolina
Academic Press.
Bohm, R. (2017). DeathQuest: An introduction to the theory and practice of capital punishment in the United
States. New York: Routledge.
Bohm, R., Flanagan, T., & Harris, P. (1990). Current death penalty opinion in New York state. Albany Law
Review, 54, 819–843.
Bowers, W., Vandiver, M., & Dugan, P. (1994). A new look at public opinion on capital punishment: What
citizens and legislators prefer. American Journal of Criminal Law, 22, 77–150.
Brame, R., Paternoster, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Testing for the equality of maximum-
likelihood regression coefficients between two independent equations. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 14(3), 245–261.
Buckler, K., Davila, M., & Salinas, P. (2008). Racial differences in public support for the death penalty: Can
racist sentiment and core values explain the racial divide? American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 151–
165.
Death Penalty Information Center (2017). Executed but possibly innocent. Retrieved from Death Penalty
Information Center: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent.
Death Penalty Information Center (2017b). Gallup poll: Support for death penalty at lowest level since 1972.
Retrieved from Death Penalty Information Center: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/6589.
Death Penalty Information Center (2017c). PEW POLL: Public support for the death penalty drops below
50% for the first time in 45 years. Retrieved from Death Penalty Information Center:
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/6565.
Dotson, H., & Carter, J. (2012). Changing views toward the death penalty - the intersecting impact of race and
gender on attitudes. The Justice System Journal, 33, 1–21.
Ellsworth, P., & Gross, L. (1994). Hardening of the attitudes: Americans' views on the death penalty. Journal
of Social Issues, 50, 19–52.
Fox, J., Radelet, M., & Bonsteel, J. (1991). Death penalty opinion in the post-Furman years. New York
University Review of Law and Social Change, 18, 449–528.
Johnson, R., & McGunigall-Smith, S. (2008). Life without parole, America's other death penalty. The Prison
Journal, 88(2), 328–346.
Keil, T.J., Vito, G.F., & Andreescu, V. (1999). Perceptions of neighborhood safety and support for the
reintroduction of capital punishment in Romania: Results from a bucuresti survey. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43(4), 514–534.
Lambert, E., Camp, S., Clarke, A., & Jiang, S. (2011). The impact of information on death penalty support,
revisited. Crime & Delinquency, 57(4), 572–599.
Longmire, D. (1996). Americans' attitudes about the ultimate weapon: Capital punishment. In T. Flanagan &
D. Longmire (Eds.), Americans view crime and justice: A national public opinion survey (pp. 93–108).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McGarrell, E., & Sandys, M. (1996). The misconception of public opinion toward capital punishment.
American Behavioral Scientist, 39, 500–513.
Moon, M., Wright, J., Cullen, F., & Pealer, J. (2000). Putting kids to death: Specifying public support for
juvenile capital punishment. Justice Quarterly, 17, 663–684.
Rade, C., Holland, A., Jordan, B., & Desmarais, S. (2017). Systematic review of religious affliations and
beliefs as correlates of public attitudes toward capital punishment. Criminal Justice Studies, 30(1), 63–85.
Sandys, M., & McGarrell, E. (1994). Attitudes toward capital punishment among Indiana legislators:
Diminished support in light of alternative sentencing options. Justice Quarterly, 11, 651–677.
Unnever, J., & Cullen, F. (2007). Reassessing the racial divide in support for capital punishment: The
continuing significance of race. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(1), 124–158.
Unnever, J., Cullen, F., & Roberts, J. (2005). Not everyone strongly supports the death penalty: Assessing
weakly-held attitudes about capital punishment. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(2), 187–216.
Vito, G., & Keil, T. (1998). Elements of support for capital punishment: An examination of changing attitudes.
Journal of Crime and Justice, 21, 17–36.
Vito, G., Higgins, G., & Vito, A. (2014). Capital sentencing in Kentucky, 2000–2010. American Journal of
Criminal Justice, 39, 753–770.
870 Am J Crim Just (2018) 43:861–870

Vogel, B. (2003). Support for life in prison without possibility of parole among death penalty proponents.
American Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(2), 263–275.
Vollum, S., Longmire, D., & Buffington-Vollum, J. (2004). Confidence in the death penalty and support for its
use: Exploring the value-expressive dimension of death penalty attitudes. Justice Quarterly, 21(3), 521–
546.
Wosniak, K. (2017). The relationship between perceptions of prison and support for the death penalty versus
life without parole. Journal of Crime and Justice, 40(2), 222–237.
Zeisel, H., & Gallup, A. (1989). Death penalty sentiment in the United States. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 5, 285–297.

Gennaro F. Vito is a Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Louisville. He also
serves as a faculty member in the Administrative Officer’s Course at the Southern Police Institute. He holds a
Ph.D. in Public Administration from The Ohio State University. He is a past president and Fellow of the
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and a recipient of their Bruce Smith Award. He has published journal
articles on such topics as: capital sentencing, police consolidation, police traffic stops, policing strategies for
drug problems in public housing, attitudes toward capital punishment, and the effectiveness of criminal justice
programs, such as drug elimination programs, drug courts, and drug testing of probationers and parolees. He is
the co-author of nine textbooks in criminal justice and criminology including Criminology: Theory, Research
and Practice (Jones & Bartlett) and Organizational Behavior and Management in Law Enforcement (Prentice
Hall).

George E. Higgins is a Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice Administration at the University of
Louisville where he also serves as the Ph.D. Program Coordinator. He received his Ph.D. in Criminology from
Indiana University of Pennsylvania in 2001. He has published more than 100 journal articles and book
chapters primarily in the areas of criminological theory testing, racial profiling, and cybercrime. In 2009, he
was awarded the Coramae Richey Mann Leadership Award, which is the top award from the Minority and
Women’s Section of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences for research and leadership in race and
ethnicity research. He is the past editor of the American Journal of Criminal Justice and The Journal of
Criminal Justice Education.

Anthony G. Vito is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminology at the University of West
Georgia. He has published articles in the International Journal of Police Science and Management, Journal of
Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, Deviant Behavior, and the American Journal of Criminal Justice. His research
interests include policing, drug research, public policy and advanced statistics. His most current book is Racial
Profiling: Using Propensity Score Matching to Examine Focal Concerns Theory (Taylor & Francis, 2016).