Final Report for Focus Group Research, 2007 April 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Roberts & Kay, Inc. produced this study for the Kentucky Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, with
partial funding from the Tides Foundation and an anonymous donor. See contact information below.

Project Design
Kristin Houlé, Steve Kay, Rona Roberts, Roberts & Kay, Inc.

Focus Group Facilitation
Steve Kay, Rona Roberts

Analysis and Reporting
Kristin Houlé, Steve Kay, Rona Roberts

Recruitment Coordination, Administrative Support, and Logistics
Kristin Houlé, Donna Wainscott

And we'd like to thank the following for their help

Sister Catherine Amold

Sallie A bbott

Steve Durkee

Claire and Rose Farley

Roberta Harding

Donna Wainscott

Will Wamer

UK Law students who participated in the pilot group

All those who reviewed the interview questions and provided feedback

Contact information:

Kentucky Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
P.O. Box 3092

Louisville, KY 40201-3092

(502) 585-2895

kcadp@ earthlink.net

Tides Death Penalty Mobilization Fund

c/o Kathleen W. Lee, Program Officer

(415) 561-6349

DPMF@tides.org
www.tides.org/foundation/death_penalty_rfp.cfm

Roberts & Kay, Inc.
250 Campsie Place
Lexington, KY 40508-1836
(859) 231-8308
tki@ robertsandkay.com
www.robertsandkay.com
© Kentucky Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 1

I Introduction 3

Il. Key Findings 4

A. Widely held views about the death penalty, and recommendations
for developing messages 4

B. Toward effective ways to convey messages to moderate death penalty
supporters in Kentucky 10
Ill. Participants’ Views 14
A. Discussion of crime and sense of safety/risk 14
B. Discussion about punishment and the justice system 15
CG: News about the death penalty 21
D. Discussion about the death penalty 23

E. Best arguments 33

IV. Appendices
Appendix A: Methodology 34
Appendix B: Demographics 36
Appendix C: Screener37

Appendix D: Interview Guide41
Executive Summary

Analysis of five focus groups conducted in early 2001 among moderate supporters of the death
penalty in five regions of Kentucky reveals that participants in all groups held highly consistent
and somewhat paradoxical views. Most participants shared a similar set of reasons for
supporting the death penalty: they believe it is absolutely essential that the state have an
ultimate, final means of punishing people who commit terrible crimes; and they strongly believe
that the death penalty is a just punishment — that those who take life would forfeit their own
lives. Most participants also shared a similar set of reasons for their willingness to apply the
death penalty or a lesser penalty in specific capital cases. Participants placed great emphasis on
intent, premeditation, and moral accountability. Paradoxically, although most participants stated
nearly unwavering support for the death penalty, these beliefs led most participants in each of the
five groups to consider the death penalty inappropriate in the two specific capital cases they
considered. Given summary information about the background and trials of two men convicted
of murder and sentenced to death, most participants said they would apply a lesser penalty.

To be a moderate supporter of the death penalty means that one believes the death penalty is
necessary and just, but that it should be applied sparingly. As a result, most arguments that
attempt to undermine support for the death penalty by showing the ways that it is unfair or
unjust in the pattem of its application allow adherents to maintain the fundamental basis of their
support.

Moderate supporters in the focus groups believe that the death penalty, while not much of a
deterrent for future crime, is nonetheless necessary to protect society from the worst kinds of
violence They believe the death penalty could be a deterrent if only it were carried out more
quickly. They believe it is also necessary as the only complete, sure retribution and the only real
closure for victims’ loved ones. These beliefs lead moderate supporters to discount or dismiss
evidence and arguments about lack of fairness, lack of equity, lack of adequate counsel, and the
dollar costs to society. Those who admit some legitimacy to these arguments still held firmly to
their support for the death penalty. In the extreme, some moderate death penalty supporters are
willing to accept the probability that innocent people might be executed as a cost for maintaining
the death penalty. Moderate death penalty supporters seem to say: “Don’t apply the death
penalty in this case, and not in this case, and not in this one either, but we still need the death
penalty. We could fix the system in some ways if it means the wrong people are at risk of being
put to death, but we still need the death penalty. In fact, we need it to be carried out more swiftly
so it can make others stop and think. In any case, we need the death penalty.”

These findings suggest that most traditional media campaigns based on appeals to fairness and
equity are unlikely to undermine support for the death penalty in Kentucky. Media messages are
too easily discounted and dismissed, and these moderate supporters of the death penalty did not
consider mainstream media particularly trustworthy.

A more promising approach involves organizing an array of person-to-person and small group
strategies, featuring ordinary Kentuckians who share some affinity and identity with those with
whom they will be meeting and talking. Such a strategy should begin with gently challenging
key beliefs moderate death penalty supporters hold that are based on misinformation or
misunderstanding. These mistaken beliefs include:

Prison itself — as in life without parole — is fairly pleasant.
All states now have the death penalty.

It costs more to maintain a prisoner for life than to seek the death penalty and carry it out.
The justice system, including representation of indigents, works fairly and well.

Unfair application of the death penalty is an exception, rather than the rule.

Once moderate death penalty supporters begin to open their minds to new information and new
facts, it may be possible to persuade them to consider the death penalty in a different light.

A second strategy that might add power to the face-to-face, “high-touch” campaign involves the
regular use of names, hometowns, or other ordinary human facts about people who have been
sentenced to death. Moderate death penalty supporters are not persuaded by systemic arguments
against the death penalty. Instead, they may be more likely to think and act out of their
empathetic values and sense of personal accountability when death row inmates are always
presented as specific human beings who have names, identities, and stories. Any attempt to
concentrate on the humanity of death row inmates as a primary argument is likely to fail, but
presenting their humanity as a matter of course while making other points could increase the
force of primary arguments against the death penalty.

This round of focus group research suggests that moderate death penalty supporters hold their
views quite firmly, and that the openings for changing views of this important group of
Kentuckians are slender and untested. Direct attacks on their views seem likely to cause them to
cling to their views even more strongly. Producing changes in their views depends more on the
persuasive power of human connection than on mass media, and more on organizing than on
advertising. Though it would not be easy or quick, a consistent, organized system for putting
Kentuckians who oppose the death penalty in lots of direct conversations with moderate death
penalty supporters seems the best hope for decreasing public support for Kentucky’ s death

penalty.
The Death Penalty Paradox
I. Introduction

Late in 2000, the Kentucky Coalition Against the Death Penalty (KCADP) asked Roberts &
Kay, Inc. (RKI) of Lexington, Kentucky, to conduct focus group research to help provide a
research basis for the development of future campaigns, tactics, and strategies intended to
persuade Kentuckians to abolish the death penalty. The research strategy involved in-depth
conversations with Kentuckians presumed to be most likely to represent mainstream voter views,
and most likely to be in influential contact with state legislators and policy makers. The research
received partial funding from the Tides Foundation.

In January and February, 2001, RKI conducted five focus groups with a total of 49 European
American/white active Kentucky voters over the age of 35 who expressed mild to moderate
support of the death penalty. A professional market research firm recruited participants
randomly in five geographic locations within Kentucky, creating groups that reflected some
diversity in terms of income, age, educational attainment, and religious affiliation. Each group
included between eight and twelve participants. These were the groups:

Hopkinsville: Females
Lexington: Males
London: Females
Northem Kentucky: Males
Pikeville: Males

Section II of the report presents key findings that reflect widely shared views of a majority of the
focus group participants, and recommendations based on those findings. Section III presents a
broader and more thorough look at participants’ views, including those held by people outside
the majority. Section III also includes extensive quotations from participants, with page
references to verbatim transcripts of the five sessions.

For more information about the decisions that guided the research, see Appendix A. Appendix B
presents specific information about the research participants. Appendix C presents the screening
interview tool professional market recruiters used to assemble the groups. Appendix D presents
the detailed Interview Guide the facilitators used during the sessions.
Il. Key Findings
This section presents the key findings with regard to three research questions:

What views do present supporters of the death penalty hold about the justice and
effectiveness of the death penalty, and the necessity for it?

What kinds of messages — both in terms of content and format — might be most
effective in softening those views toward opposition of the death penalty?

What is the most effective way for the Coalition to present those messages during
its next advertising campaign?

Most of the key findings in Section A, below, relate to the first research question, which aimed at
deepening understanding of the views that moderate supporters of the death penalty in Kentucky
held. The best available answers to the second research question, which focused on messages,
are found in the recommendations following each key finding. These recommendations are
based on participants’ statements and on observation of their responses to the topics they
considered.

Section B addresses the third research question, about strategies for presenting messages.
Section B includes suggestions based on the research, augmented by additional ideas about
approaches worthy of consideration.

A. Widely held views about the death penalty, and recommendations for developing
messages

The key findings in this section reflect views that were widely shared within individual groups
and across the five groups, unless specifically noted otherwise. “Widely shared” means that a
substantial majority of the participants in the groups shared a particular view. For example, the
majority of participants were firm supporters of the death penalty. Compared to this majority, in
each group one or two people stated their support for the death penalty somewhat more
tentatively, and one or two people stated their support somewhat more adamantly. The views
presented in these key findings are primarily those held by the majority of the participants in
each of the groups.

1. Participants have definite, somewhat paradoxical views about justice and the death
penalty.

Participants’ views about justice and the death penalty are concrete, case-specific, practical, and
sometimes paradoxical. Here are the main elements of those views, presented as they might be
stated by a typical participant in any of the five focus groups.

The death penalty is fair because it is the right punishment for particular, specific crimes.
It is just. Those who take life deserve to forfeit their own lives.
The death penalty is not a system. It is a specific punishment that is the only right and
fair thing to do in a limited number of cases. It is there when needed, when nothing else
will do.

It follows that systemic barriers to fairness are beside the point if the person who receives
the death penalty did, in fact, commit the crime. Arguments about underage defendants,
arbitrary sentencing, ineffective counsel, and racial bias are more than likely used to
distract from the key question about justice: did a specific person commit a specific crime
or not?

The death penalty is necessary as a final option, as a maximum punishment. Most
families of victims would not be satisfied with less. It is surprising news that people and
places can get along without the death penalty.

The death penalty does not need to be used often. In fact, it is needed primarily when
crimes are particularly offensive to humanity and when guilt is proven beyond a shadow
of a doubt.

The people who commit crimes that deserve the death penalty are remorseless criminals.
They know right from wrong and they choose wrong. They are so far outside the bounds
of normal accountability and decent behavior that they deserve to die.

On the other hand, most people who commit murder do it on impulse, without planning
or premeditation.

Even though a person may deserve the death penalty, and the state should carry out the
execution, it might still be hard to make a decision personally to send someone to death,
and even harder to be the one who had to carry out the sentence. Family members of
victims would not have this difficulty, however. Families of victims surely must long for
personal vengeance against the murderer.

The justice system may not be perfect but it works overall to produce acceptable levels of
justice and crime control. It may not work well locally, but it works well generally. The
justice system that must be “out there” in the United States — a different justice system
from the one in place locally — operates in line with the best interests of ordinary
citizens who know right from wrong and stay out of trouble. As a result of this fairly
well-run justice system, if a person confesses to a crime or if ajury finds a person guilty,
s/he is almost certainly guilty.

In one important way, the system does not work well: It gets in the way of carrying out
the death penalty in a timely way. Appeals favor the convicted person. In fact, appeals
get in the way of real justice being carried out in a way that will bring closure for the
victim’s loved ones. The system would be more fair if it resulted in swifter punishment.
Carrying out the death penalty more quickly might even cause some people to pause in
the future before they commit a violent crime.

Somewhere within the justice system — not locally, but somewhere — someone surely
must be watching out for the overall fairness of the system so that problems can be
corrected if they arise. Judges, particularly, certainly are watching over the whole system
to make sure it is fair. Some innocent people are going to get caught in the system every
once in a while, but the system works to figure that out, and usually people get released.
Even if innocent people are accidentally executed, that may be a reasonable price for
continuing to be able to apply the death penalty in those severe cases where it is
absolutely needed.

Even though most participants stated their support for the death penalty in strong terms and did
not seem to waver, their views incorporate some paradoxes. First, although most participants
stated firmly, strongly, and frequently that people who take life deserve to die themselves, the
majority of participants also said the death penalty should be reserved for particularly terrible
crimes. The focus groups did not directly investigate what participants thought should happen to
people who took a life in a way that did not rise to the level of a particularly heinous act, but
there is some evidence that lesser sentences were considered acceptable.

Second, participants said most people — even young people well below legal adulthood —
know right from wrong and that people convicted of capital crimes have chosen wrong
deliberately. At the same time, participants said most murders are committed on impulse,
without real thought about anything, including consequences, or, presumably, whether their
actions breach the boundary between right and wrong.

Some of these paradoxes became most clear when participants considered what the fair
punishment should be in two separate cases in which a man was convicted of murder. Despite
participants’ stated views that people who take others’ lives deserve to die, most participants
assigned punishments in each case that were less than the death penalty those men received in
actuality. This paradox seems to stem from a tendency to hold strongly punitive views in the
abstract, coupled with more lenient views about particular, specific crimes. Within these
paradoxes and inconsistencies some small openings exist that may contribute to changing
Kentuckians’ views through certain types of persuasive efforts.

Recommendations related to key findings about justice and the death penalty

At their core, what most participants said they most wanted was to make sure that individual,
specific crimes are appropriately punished. Participants rejected most assertions about the death
penalty that took a systemic approach. Appeals to a sense of fairness that were intended to cause
participants to second guess their support for the death penalty failed conclusively to change
views. Even so, a few opportunities for beginning to work on change may exist. Some of the
opportunities involve appeals to logic, while others appeal to empathy. Both types of appeals are
likely to be necessary in any campaign that aims to persuade supporters to change their minds
about the death penalty.

a. People on death row are humans, too. Almost automatically, empathy among the focus
group participants flowed toward victims of violent crime. By contrast, participants
seemed to assume that people who commit violent crime are somehow different from the
rest of us — less human, less worthy of empathetic consideration.

Y et without acknowledging it, participants showed a tendency to modify their hard line
punitive stance against people convicted of capital crimes once those people had names,
ages, and home communities. Perhaps the convicted criminals became more undeniably
human when these few facts about them became known.

Even so, it is important to avoid approaches that emphasize the humanity of death row
inmates while minimizing the crime or ignoring the losses, grief, and pain of victims’
families. It is necessary to work to increase empathy for individual criminals as human
beings while still underscoring the need for them to take responsibility for their actions
and pay for their crimes with the loss of their freedom.

Appeals based solely on the humanity of death row inmates will likely fail because of
death penalty supporters’ many other views about justice. In particular, anything that
smacks of excuses for the crime will work against the effort.

A more promising course is to present death row inmates as human beings as a matter of
course when making other types of arguments against the death penalty. We would only
expect this approach to succeed if two conditions are met. First, information must be
presented on a case by case basis, not systemically. Second, this approach should be
used in concert with other approaches, without calling undue attention to itself. In other
words, appeals simply based on names and facts of individual death row inmates will not
succeed, but it may help to use inmates’ names and facts about their lives as a matter of
course in messages that have other main points. Referring consistently to ordinary
human aspects of people on death row when making any of the other arguments
recommended below should help convey the message subtly that people on death row are
human, and deserve humane consideration.

“Could you personally execute Jamie Doe?” A few people suggested that the death
penalty would be hard for them to carry out personally, either as jury members or as
actual executioners. This suggested a possibility of an approach based on empathetic
values.

Asking that people consider whether they themselves want to take responsibility for
carrying out the killing of specific human beings in the name of the state might be one
way to introduce at least a pause and some reflection for some death penalty supporters
who have not thought of themselves as morally responsible for the death penalty. In
addition, questions or concerns about innocence and faimess might also evoke more
concem among death penalty supporters if they were presented in the context of specific
actual people. Considerable testing would be required to shape the messages that could
make this approach succeed.

“Our justice system is complex and does not operate as we imagine it does; it has flaws
that we may not be able to overcome.” Participants widely shared three somewhat
conflicting presumptions: that the justice system somehow works pretty well, that their
local justice systems have major flaws, and that many court-appointed attorneys provide
dangerously ineffective counsel for the people unlucky enough to have to rely on their
help. Participants seemed to have little real information about the criminal justice
process, and their strongly held views seemed to come mainly from watching television
programs about courtroom experiences. Perhaps a logic-based approach can be
constructed that will provide more information about what the justice system is, how it
works, how few built-in corrections it has that ensure fairness, who is responsible for
improving it, and how the arbitrariness of the present system puts everyone at risk. This
kind of information flies in the face of what most focus group participants assumed. In
order to foster genuine understanding and not simply erode people’s present faith in the
justice system, this information-based approach needs to point to actions they can take
and almost certainly needs to take the form of skillful, long-term education, rather than
advertising.

The participants view the death penalty as necessary even though it may not be
effective as a deterrent.

Most participants held decisive views about whether the death penalty is effective as a way to
reduce future violent crime. These are the key aspects of the most widely shared views.

The death penalty does not deter future violent crime. Most violent crimes are committed
impulsively, without a great deal of thought to consequences.

The death penalty is effective in one sense: It absolutely ends the possibility that a
specific person can commit a future crime.

The death penalty could be tuned into a more effective deterrent if it were carried out
more swiftly. Then people might be forced into considering the likely consequences of
their actions before they take a life. The lengthy appeals process is something criminals
use to their advantage, something that does not serve justice in particular cases at all.

Recommendations related to key findings about the effectiveness of the death penalty

A significant number of participants seemed surprised by the fact that some states get along
without the death penalty without inviting intolerable levels of crime and violence. We spent
little time on this fact once we introduced it, and the information we presented did not include
any information about the small number of countries that still have the death penalty. We cannot
be certain of the size of this opening, but believe some further exploration is warranted.

a.

“Other states do without the death penalty; we can too.” We suggest further exploration
of the impact of concentrating on the fact that states don’t have to have the death penalty
to control crime, that the sentence of life without parole can function as a “maximum”
sentence that responds with appropriate force to violence. This could result in an
approach that appeals to logic.

Within the focus groups, some participants wanted more information about how those
states managed without the death penalty: Do they use different types of punishment for
lesser offenses? Do they concentrate on prevention? A few skeptics pointed out ways
they thought they could dismiss the evidence about lower crime in the non-death penalty
states, suggesting that perhaps those states have smaller or more rural populations, or
other factors that make them “not like Kentucky.”

The skepticism underscores that it would be important to develop information that makes
close, documented comparisons in some telling way. The fact that West Virginia is one
of the states without the death penalty may be advantageous — but specific facts and
their presentation in message form need to be checked with people like the focus group
participants to see what really works.

Participants say “we need the death penalty,” even with the option of life without
parole.

Little time has passed since Kentucky instituted the possibility of a life sentence without parole.
Participants had very little experience to use a basis for judgment about the effectiveness of this
punishment. At this point, however, agreement was quite widespread about some facets of the
necessity for the death penalty. Here are those widely shared views.

Life without parole is a serious penalty, but it is not as certain as an execution. A person
sentenced to life without parole could escape or be pardoned, either of which would be a
terrible failure of justice, particularly for the victim’s family.

Life without parole doesn’t seem harsh enough for some of the most awful crimes.

Prison conditions are almost pleasant: prisoners have food, clothing, housing, medical
care, and amenities like television, weight rooms, and libraries. A person sentenced to
life without parole may simply not suffer enough for the punishment to be fair in relation
to the crime of ending someone's life forever.

Life without parole surely costs more than carrying out the death penalty, particularly if
the death penalty could be carried out in a timely way.

Recommendations relating to key findings about the necessity for the death penalty

This set of views on the death penalty may offer some of the most promising avenues for
changing the views of moderate supporters. Here are some possibilities.

a.

Life without parole is certain punishment. Develop and highlight facts about the strong
likelihood that a sentence of life without parole will be carried out to its full extent. This
will appeal to logic.

Prison is punishment. Make a convincing case that being in prison for life is truly a
harsh punishment. Use both appeals to logic and appeals to empathetic reasoning to
develop content that describes prison conditions accurately.

Life without parole is cheaper than executions. Develop a careful, logic-based case for
the greater costs of capital trials, compared to those in which the prosecutor seeks life
without parole. Emphasize that the costs are greater even before appeals, if that case can
be made. Use examples from Indiana, Texas, or other states where counties are having to
cut or reduce vital services in order to pay for capital trials. Show how the money saved
from the life without parole sentence could be used for other purposes that relate to
reducing or preventing crime.

The information about costs produced surprise in the focus groups. Certainly not
everyone believed the information, but it did create a kind of openness to inquiry that
other arguments against the death penalty failed to produce. Presuming the surprise
would be widespread if the cost information became more public, some death penalty
supporters might be inclined to rethink their positions. If they realized they were wrong
about costs, the possibility may occur to them that they could be wrong about other
beliefs or opinions they hold with regard to the death penalty. In addition, responses in
the focus groups suggest that a few people — all of whom are logical thinkers, and some
of whom may be key figures in community and state decision making — are likely to
find the facts about cost quite compelling. The facts about costs need to be documented
from as neutral and well-known a source as possible, and they need to be Kentucky-
based.

To summarize the key findings, in this section, participants value the death penalty, believe it is
just, and are unwilling to entertain most systemic arguments against it. Although participants in
the five groups considered several faimess-based arguments against the death penalty during
their two hour conversations, and although they found some of those arguments to have some
merit, none of the arguments outweighed their basic conviction that “we need the death penalty.”
Some influential death penalty supporters may be persuaded by logical approaches that educate
them about the ways states and nations deal out maximum punishment without executing people,
and how the costs of capital trials exceed the costs of life without parole, even for people who
live long lives. The possibilities for changing the views of moderate supporters of the death
penalty, while slender, should be improved by capitalizing subtly on their tendency to consider
punishment questions one case at a time, and on the humanizing force of simply describing death
row inmates in straightforward, human terms. Long-term education about how the criminal
justice system functions and how citizens can work to improve it may also yield beneficial
results over time.

B. Toward effective ways to convey messages to moderate death penalty supporters in
Kentucky

The limitations on focus group time made it impossible to explore deeply the most effective
ways for the Coalition to present its messages. The brief time spent on the subject suggested
these findings.

Most of what participants know about law and justice comes from television news and
television dramas. Newspapers are a second strong source of information.

Participants do not find their present sources of news about crime, violence, and the
criminal justice system particularly trustworthy.

Although participants suggested a few people and categories of people who might be
trustworthy sources of information on issues of crime and punishment, no single
suggestion won any support from other participants in groups.

Recommendations about effective ways to convey messages
The recommendations about message development are based on what participants in the focus

groups said, but also on how they behaved. In addition, we offer some suggestions based on
experiences in other arenas.
A “high-touch,” “ordinary person” conversational campaign. It is possible that some
advertising against the death penalty, using finely honed messages that primarily appeal
to logic, could help create more openness in the climate of Kentucky public opinion.
Findings from the focus groups suggest that a different strategy may make more of a
difference in Kentucky at this time, however. Whatever the reasons — and we suspect
extensive exposure to television versions of justice plays an important role — it seems
likely that people who support the death penalty have fairly fixed views, and are not very
responsive to typical media-based influence strategies.

Even though they watch and read a lot, given that participants reported having little faith
in the media as sources of trustworthy information, one alternative approach is to move
beyond media to direct person-to-person influence strategies. We recommend an effort
that puts “ordinary Kentuckians” who oppose the death penalty into loosely structured
conversations with their friends, neighbors, and fellow church members. For this part of
the campaign, we are suggesting conversational approaches such as roundtables or
dialogues, not hard-hitting, fact-based speeches. We suggest equipping the death penalty
opponents who carry out this work with specific examples of both logic-based and
empathy-based appeals, and with ways of making death row inmates human beings who
have names, homes, families, and stories while not excusing their crime.

We base this recommendation on two factors. First, focus group participants seemed
receptive to specific stories about specific people who had committed violent crimes.
Since concrete stories made a noticeable impact, we reason that if trustworthy human
beings convey those stories — people who are friends, neighbors, civic leaders, fellow
members of religious congregations — the impact will be forceful and direct enough to
counter the less trustworthy media, no matter how prolific the media offerings that stoke
fear of violent crime and offer implicit or explicit support for harsh punishment.

Second, in the London focus group, when some participants expressed concems about the
death penalty, the resulting tone of the conversation with the remaining death penalty
supporters had a quality of greater openness and inquiry than we had anticipated. We did
not see this kind of openness to considering altermative views in the groups where
participants held more unitary views. We are guessing that peers who gently and
skillfully change the conversational climate by expressing their own questions and
concems about the death penalty will encourage thoughtfulness and openness among
moderate Kentucky death penalty supporters.

A group of higher profile, high credibility spokespersons. Participants did not identify
any widely supported candidates for the role of trusted spokespersons. Instead, a small
number of participants tentatively made a few suggestions about categories of people,
along with one actual person, who might be useful in this role. A vacuum exists, and it
can be filled strategically. One approach would be development of a group of people
whose knowledge, credentials, and skills with groups could be promoted widely,
particularly, for example, within specific church communities, as church basement
speakers or good sources of special sermons. As another example, these credible
spokespersons could give talks at local public libraries. It seems wise to work to develop
a cadre of people who fit with particular features of key audiences. For example,
identify, cultivate interest in, and provide support for Southern Baptists who can speak
and work within Southern Baptist churches.

Participants’ suggestions about credible spokespersons, while not widely supported
within the groups, still seem like good places to start the search for people who might be
appropriate for this ambassadorial role. People suggested these sources:

Families of victims

Judges

Leaders

People on death row

People with recent prison experience
Chuck Colson

Organized, supported denominational insiders. Given the strong religious affiliations of
many Kentuckian, it seems logical that a good portion of a campaign against the death
penalty could be carried out in church basements and meeting rooms. This work cannot
be carried out directly by state-level groups against the death penalty, however. They are
likely viewed as untrustworthy, aggressive outsiders. The work must be organized in a
more grassroots way, using carefully selected insider spokespersons who will understand
the ways particular church groups organize special events. As an example, a family of a
Nazarene murder victim, with support, might identify and make arrangements to speak in
informal settings at five nearby Nazarene churches. The family would know what types
of requests to make of church leaders, for which types of sessions, and how to get the
sponsoring churches to get the word out about the session. This kind of close-to-the-
ground information is nearly impossible for a statewide organization such as KCADP to
master; on the other hand, without KCADP ora similar organization in the background
that locates, nurtures, and supports the spokespersons in the forefront, this kind of effort
will never happen.

Beyond talk to art. The voices of the people who support the death penalty, presented in
the transcripts, have a lot of power and authenticity. Although it was not in the scope of
this research to do so, we regret not having similar voices recorded and transcribed in
opposition to the death penalty. We recommend that you explore with interested actors
the possibility of developing a theatrical piece that will use Kentuckians’ own words,
both for and against the death penalty, to help open Kentuckians’ hearts and minds to
questions about this punishment.

The source for this recommendation is out of state. In Minneapolis/St. Paul, the
Education and Housing Equity Project, which is concerned with the intersection of
racism, bad housing, and poor education, worked with an improvisational theater group
to produce a play about affordable housing. The actors presented the play primarily
within religious congregations. More than 3,200 people saw the play and filled out
commitment cards pledging to increasing their efforts on behalf of affordable housing.
The effort translated into more lobbying power at the next legislative session, and
contributed to passing significant positive legislation.
In summary, we believe new approaches are necessary to develop an effective campaign to
change Kentuckians’ views about the death penalty. Because of the enormous weight of
presumption about support for the death penalty and other harsh punishments that streams
steadily through mainstream media news and dramas, it seems unlikely that classic media
campaigns will work effectively. Even though the focus group participants said they do not
consider their media sources trustworthy, the pro-death penalty information exists in so much
abundance in mainstream media that it would be enormously hard to counter with a non-profit
advertising campaign in the same media.

Instead, any media campaign might be designed primarily to create openings in a climate for the
face-to-face work. One possible use of media advertising lies in the realm of logic — providing
accurate, crisp information on those facts that caused surprise among focus group participants,
including cost and the presence of states without the death penalty.

Leaving aside mainstream media, the focus group participants’ behavior, and some of their
statements, suggested that they can be reached and persuaded by other credible sources that use
concrete, direct, no-nonsense information. We suggest the following: experimentation with
different types of person-to-person campaigns; the development of a carefully cultivated cadre of
credible, higher profile spokespersons who can match some important aspects of Kentuckians’
identities; concentration on organizing a supported network of denominational insiders; and
exploration of expressive art forms that may reach people in new ways. Because of their
immediacy and high face-to-face involvement, we also would expect these “high-touch,”
grassroots approaches to result in Kentuckians conveying any changed opinions directly to their
legislators far more quickly than might be the case if their minds were changed by a media-based
advertising campaign.

This section of key findings has concentrated on the views of the majority of the focus group
participants, and has included recommendations for ways to organize some components of a
campaign in response to the findings. The next section provides a more detailed look at the
range of views in the groups regarding each of the main interview topics, and follows the order
and structure of the interview guide.
III. Participants’ Views

This section follows the course of the focus group sessions, question by question. The questions
facilitators asked are in italics, and are called “interview questions.” See Appendix D for the
complete Interview Guide.

A. Discussion of crime and sense of safety/risk

This section addresses participants’ responses to questions about their own sense of safety and
their perceptions of crime in their own communities.

Interview Question 1: Tonight we are here to talk about crime and our justice system. Let's start
where we are, right here in

What are you hearing or seeing about crime here in this community?
In your view, is the crime situation here getting better, worse, or staying about the same?

For the opening questions about local crime conditions, agreement was quite strong within each
group, though each group responded in a somewhat different ways. In northern Kentucky,
participants agreed that the situation with crime is getting better, and that they start with an
advantage. One person said, “Seems to me we're in a lot better shape on this side of the river
than our neighbors to the north.” (NKY, p. 2) Another said, “In the suburban areas you have
very little violent crime.” (NKY p. 5) In fact, at least one participant in northern Kentucky said
the prosecution of crime in Campbell County is such that “anybody with any brains wouldn’t
even think about getting in trouble.” (NKY p. 1) Northern Kentucky participants agreed that
crime is more of a concer in downtown areas in Covington and Cincinnati and said they use
care and caution about traveling in some parts of those cities at night.

Participants in Lexington said that crime is getting better in their community, but they fear that
true crime statistics relating to drugs and gangs are kept hidden or downplayed by local
authorities. In Hopkinsville and London participants reported that drug-related crime is up, and
said crimes against children are a growing concem. Participants in both these sites also
expressed significant concerms about corruption and favoritism in local law enforcement and
criminal justice. In Pikeville, participants gave mixed responses to questions about local crime.
They described a variety of violent crimes that stood out in their minds, but they also said their
crime situation was much better than that in cities such as Chicago or Detroit.

In your everyday life, how safe do you feel?
In what ways does concern about crime affect how you personably act, think, and feel?

Participants in four of the five sites reported very high levels of personal safety. People used
terms like “very safe” (NKY p.6), “perfectly safe” (Hopkinsville, p. 4), and “extremely safe”
(Lexington, p. 3) to describe their nearly universal sense of well-being in their own
neighborhoods. Pikeville participants reported some concerns about personal safety and, more
commonly, concems about theft of personal property. In three of the groups at least one
participant volunteered the information that he/she typically carried a weapon of some type in
order to increase his/her personal sense of safety.

A few of the female participants in Hopkinsville and London expressed concerns about personal

safety in certain situations, and said they had changed some behaviors as a result. They said they
had begun avoiding nighttime travel or shopping, and either avoiding mall parking lots or taking

extra precautions when using them.

What would make you feel safer and less concerned about crime?

Participants around the state shared one strong response to this question: they want punishment
to be carried out more swiftly and with greater firmness. The first response in Lexington was “I
think the parole system lets people off too easy.” (Lexington p. 4) The first person to respond in
Pikeville suggested that when somebody gets the death penalty after a conviction for murder,
s/he should be executed in less than 18 or 20 years. In the first moments of the Pikeville
exchange on that question, a participant asked, “Why should it take 100 years?” (Pikeville p.4)
In Hopkinsville and London, the concem about corruption in local law enforcement and the local
judiciary surfaced again in response to this question, as a preface to the assertion that people who
have connections or money or other forms of advantage within the system receive punishments
that are inappropriately light or that are lifted much too soon because of agreements on
probation.

B. Discussion about punishment and the justice system
This section addresses participants’ responses to questions about the appropriate punishment for
violent crime. The researchers first asked participants to consider punishment in a general sense

and then presented them with two specific, real-life cases and asked them to determine the
appropriate punishment for those cases.

Interview Question 2: What are your impressions of the way people who commit violent crimes
are punished in this country?

With minor exception, participants expressed some strongly held and widely shared views about

punishment. It is important to note that participants stated the following views about punishment
and inequities in the justice system well before interviewers had introduced the topic of the death

penalty.
It is too lenient, with plea bargaining and swift paroles too prevalent.
It is too slow, particularly with regard to carrying out the death penalty.
It is subject to manipulation by people with money, connections, and the best lawyers.

The first responses participants gave in four of the sites suggest the flavor of the conversation
about punishment of people who commit violent crimes:

I think it depends on the basis of the crime. Y ou know, I mean, the way I believe — an
eye for an eye, a tooth fora tooth. So, I mean, you know, the guy committed first degree
murder and he’s convicted, and he’s guilty, or, you know, actually admits it, then why let
him sit around in jail for 25 years? (NKY p. 10)

It should be a faster system. (Pikeville, p.5)

I don’t think they give them very much punishment...these people that get out there and
murder somebody, they get off scot free. Somebody else goes out here and does a little
bitty robbery, well, they get life for it. (Hopkinsville p. 11)

Too lenient. (Lexington, p. 4)

The exceptions to these strongly held views came when one or two people in each group voiced
concem about effectiveness of counsel, expressed support for an appeals process — though one
with more time limits than the present system imposes — or stated their concerns about the
possibility that innocent people can be unfairly convicted.

In Hopkinsville, participants focused on a concern — one that showed up in some form in other
groups — that criminals’ rights receive more attention and are better protected than victims’
rights. The tone of these conversations suggests participants’ strong sense of identification with
victims and the victims’ families, and their lack of ready identification with people accused or
convicted of violent crime.

Y ou cannot dot an i or leave something out and they’ Il put a loop in there that will give
them the way to where their rights have been violated. Doesn't matter how many of your
rights were violated; their rights were violated, so therefore, there’s an amendment for
that for an appeal, and when the appeal comes through then their sentence is always cut
in half, and then the probation time is cut in half of what that sentence is. So you can get
25 years and walk in 13 months. (Hopkinsville p. 12)

They get all of these appeals and then they go and...itjust keeps going on and on and on.
There’s never an end to it. It looks like we bend over backwards to give...so they don’t
get discriminated against because they didn’t have a good lawyer or because they didn’t
do this or they didn’t do that. We bend over backwards to give them the benefit of the
doubt, but what about these families that have lost their loved ones? (Hopkinsville, p.
13)

Interview Question 3: What are the appropriate punishments for Robert Carter and Calvin
Burdine?

This section introduced the topic of the death penalty by having participants consider the
appropriate punishment for two different men, each of whom had been convicted of capital
murder in somewhat complicated circumstances. In addition to drawing participants’ attention
toward the central focus on the death penalty, this section was intended to reveal whether
mitigating circumstances of age, abuse, mental incompetency, and ineffective counsel affected
how supporters of the death penalty make their decisions about punishment. In the first phase of
work in this section, participants read a scaled-down version of facts for Robert Carter and then
made judgments about appropriate punishment. A fter talking about their decisions, they then
read a similarly scaled-down set of information about Calvin Burdine and made decisions about
appropriate punishment for him. In the second phase, researchers gave the participants
additional information about mitigating circumstances for Mr. Carter and asked them to state
whether and how their decisions about punishment changed after reading and hearing the
additional information. Finally, participants received and considered additional information
about Mr. Burdine’s case.

A strong trend toward more lenient punishment than the courts rendered

Most of the participants in the five groups were moderate to relatively strong supporters of the
death penalty, and most had expressed concern about laxity and leniency in punishment.
Nonetheless, when presented with real cases, their quick judgments about appropriate
punishment were mostly more lenient than the sentences Robert Carter and Calvin Burdine
actually received. This indicates that even firm supporters of the death penalty view it as the
appropriate punishment for only the most heinous crimes. Y et while participants appeared
reluctant to assign the death penalty on the basis of a somewhat slim number of facts, their
follow-up comments suggested that this reluctance to assign the death penalty in individual cases
still did not add up to a weakening of their overall support for the death penalty.

Of the 49 focus group participants, only eight said at first that they would definitely see death as
an appropriate punishment for Robert Carter's crime, with an additional person suggesting that
either the death penalty or life without the possibility of parole was an appropriate sentence. All
other participants either suggested lesser sentences — including at least five who suggested
sentences lower than 25 years in prison — or didn’t respond to this question, or gave unclear
information.

The trend toward assigning less punishment than had occurred in real life grew stronger after
participants received more information about Robert Carter's absence of prior offenses, history
of abuse, and low mental function, along with a quick reference to ineffective counsel. Based on
the new information, 21 of the 50 participants revised their suggestions toward lesser
punishment. Of the eight who originally decided Robert Carter’ s punishment should be death,
four lowered that punishment, as did the person who had first suggested that either the death
sentence or life without parole would be appropriate. By contrast, Robert Carter’s actual
sentence was dramatically more harsh. Robert Carter, a juvenile with brain damage and a history
of terrible abuse, coupled with ineffective counsel (which was mentioned but not explained in-
depth) has been executed.

In a reverse of the trend toward leniency, three people in Hopkinsville and one in Lexington
revised Robert Carter’ s punishment upward to the death penalty after they knew more of his
story, apparently for one of two reasons. First, some participants seemed to believe that any
decision a jury or judge makes must have merit, so if Mr. Carter had been executed, that was the
right punishment. For some other participants, Mr. Carter's story seem to call up fears that
criminals try to manipulate justice by introducing harsh tales about their lives. In a couple of the
groups, some people who said they disagreed with Robert Carter’s execution still objected to the
descriptions of the circumstances of his life, calling them “excuses.”

Regarding Calvin Burdine, who remains on death row in early 2001, seven of the 49 participants
initially said they believed his crime deserved the death penalty; eight participants suggested that
either the death penalty or life without parole would be appropriate. A significant number —
more than half of the participants — suggested that either life without the possibility of parole or
just “life” would be appropriate sentences for Mr. Burdine. Fewer people reported changing
their minds about the appropriate punishment for Mr. Burdine after they received new
information about his “sleeping counsel.” Of the 49 participants, 20 said they would not change
their decisions; 6 revised their suggested punishment downward, and 7 refused to assign a new
punishment, calling instead for a new trial. Among those who were willing to suggest
appropriate punishment for Mr. Burdine after hearing about the ineffective representation he had
received, quite a few echoed the widely shared view that he deserved a new trial.

Several things became apparent as participants in the five different groups considered
appropriate punishment for each of these two men, once with limited information, and once with
information about selected mitigating factors. First, some circumstances mattered a great deal to
participants. They talked most about a cluster of ideas that relate to intent. They considered
whether Robert Carter, in particular, “knew right from wrong” and whether Calvin Burdine went
to his former roommate's home with a plan to kill or merely a plan to get back money, which
then took an unexpected bad turn. The conversations suggested that most participants in these
focus groups believe that absolute right and wrong exist, and that people who are mentally
competent and choose to violate that right and wrong deserve no mercy. In fact, at times these
views were strongly enough stated to suggest that people who know right from wrong and
choose to do wrong anyway are an inexplicable form of human being, not quite like the
participants themselves, and not deserving of the same kinds of consideration that other humans
receive.

The question of intent could be linked to two other mitigating factors that played a role in
participants’ consideration of appropriate punishment: prior record, and, to a lesser extent,
family background. Although participants did not talk about it a great deal, in order to make
judgments about Robert Carter's and Calvin Burdine’s character, it seemed important to them to
know whether either man had behaved in criminal ways in the past. Participants wanted to know
what kinds of persons they were, and, by extension, whether they were deserving of thoughtful
or sympathetic consideration. One person said, “If he was a 17-year-old like what we've seen in
Columbine and all that, these young people who are raised in decent homes and did it for
whatever reason, then that’s a little different sided.” (Hopkinsville, p. 27)

Participants also considered family background in this exchange:

6: I’d have to say, and it may be wrong, but I guess where I come from and where
I’ve worked before, background on him, basically, family background...can have
a lot to do with it.

5: If he’s the mayor's son or not...

6: How much...well, yeah...background as far as how he was raised, what kind of

family did he come from, if he’s ajuvenile. It depends. (Lexington, p. 10)

The focus group participants seemed to put a lot of stock in the confessions of both Robert
Carter and Calvin Burdine when considering the appropriate punishment. While a few
participants found it plausible that police could have coerced the confessions or put pressure on
Carter or Burdine, a larger number said they couldn’t imagine why someone would confess to a
crime they did not commit. Their comments suggested that because the men confessed, they
must have been guilty and therefore deserving of the “maximum” punishment.

Views about the justice of Robert Carter’s punishment

People seemed to pay most attention to the information about borderline mental function in
Robert Carter’s case. The second card for Robert Carter included this statement: “In 1986, five
years after the murder, Robert Carter’s IQ was found to be 74, on the margins of mental
retardation.” While a number of people felt strongly that Carter had received the wrong
punishment, people often disagreed about whether his mental functioning was adequate for him
to know right from wrong. In an interesting escalation of the “right and wrong” argument in
both Hopkinsville and London, one participant in each group argued that Carter was guilty
because he, of all people, should have been even less likely to harm someone given that he knew
first hand how it felt to be mistreated. Here are a few of the statements people made about
Robert Carter and his ability to tell right from wrong:

Sometimes I think that attomeys play on all of these things to get your sympathy, but
then, again, when it comes down to it, a person with an IQ of 74 still should have some
reasoning as to right and wrong, and I think...I agree with the punishment he got. Before
I had life without parole, but I do agree with what he got. (Hopkinsville, p. 23-24)

I’ve got life with parole [written on my punishment card] because I thought he wasn’t
experienced enough to know how it was going to affect his life or the life of who he
killed, and when you read these other things, I think he probably didn’t know right from
wrong if he’d been raised like that. (Hopkinsville, p. 24)

He was still...on the margins of mental retardation, yeah; he still knew right from wrong...
(Lexington, p. 13)

I’ve known a lot of ‘em been raised in the poorest and roughest neighborhood in Chicago
around abused children, and you still know right from wrong. I don’t know the fact that
he’s been shot in his head and hit in the head with a baseball bat, that may have
some...but I still feel he knew right from wrong and I still wouldn’t have been, you know,
in the car. (Pikeville, p. 18)

I bet he does. A 74 1Q, they know right from wrong. (London, p. 12)
I think lower than that they know right from wrong. (London, p. 12)

One factor that did not affect many participants’ thinking about appropriate punishment for
Robert Carter was his status as a legal juvenile. Although a few participants wondered about his
age when they read the first card (which did not reveal it), they did not lower their punishments
as a result of learning that he was 17 years old. When researchers probed specifically to
determine participants’ views about Mr. Carter's age, most responded that 17 was old enough for
him to be considered adult in their views. One said, “It would make a difference to me if he
were 10 years old, but the fact that he was 17 doesn’t make a difference, if that makes sense.
He's close enough to the legal age.” (Hopkinsville, p. 27)
Views about the justice of Calvin Burdine’s punishment

Although the case of Calvin Burdine had many complexities, the main points researchers offered
to participants had to do with ineffective counsel — a sleeping defense lawyer. With regard to
the counsel Calvin Burdine received, people across the five focus groups had some common
responses:

If this information is true, Calvin Burdine deserved a new trial.

If Calvin Burdine indeed committed the murder, the fact that he had ineffective counsel
should not change the sentence he deserves.

When people learned about ineffective counsel in Calvin Burdine’s case, quite a few were
reluctant to assign a specific new punishment, instead insisting he deserved a new trial. Some
participants expressed incredulity that his efforts to gain a new trial had not succeeded. These
participants seemed, in fact, to hold a profound belief in a functioning American system of
justice that simply could not allow such abuses to exist and affect actual human beings. On the
other hand, many participants said they believe the problem of ineffective counsel is widespread
and affects poor people particularly harshly. This notion about ineffective lawyers did not
change the belief that several participants stated at different points in several different groups:
the American system of justice may not be perfect, but it is still quite good.

Because the facts didn’t change; the fact that his attorney didn’t [represent him well
doesn’t] change the fact that he had already admitted doing that. (Hopkinsville, p. 29)

Just because his lawyer was incompetent doesn’t mean he didn’t commit the crime.
(London, p. 16)

I stayed with my 25 years [suggested sentence] because I don’t think the quality of the
lawyer should decide the punishment level alone sometimes. (Lexington, p. 15)

Even though many participants stuck with their initial decisions about punishment, some
participants in every group believed Calvin Burdine got a bad deal at the hands of the justice
system.

I feel that the criminal justice system has failed Calvin Burdine in a big way, because the
judge in this case has to have seen this, that his defense attomey is sleeping, you know,
he wasn’t properly representing him. (Pikeville, p. 22-23)

Nobody’s going to sit here and tell me that if you’ re on trial for murder, your guy’s
sleeping right next to you, you're not going to do anything. There’s nobody in this room
that’s going to sit there and let your man sleep. (NKY, p. 30)

There had to be another public defender somewhere. If he hired the lawyer, he should
have fired him. I don’t care who’s footing the bill. (Hopkinsville, p. 29)

A small number of participants recognized that a defendant such as Calvin Burdine might not
have as much latitude as the other participants believed. A Hopkinsville participant said:
He wasn’t represented by a really good attorney, and I know that’s true, that he could
have fired him, but I also know that a lot of people don’t know how things work, they
don’t — they’ re not assertive. (Hopkinsville, p. 30)

Some participants holding the view that the justice system is fair expressed their belief that
judges surely would not or should not allow such ineffective counsel to occur. Their statements
reflected a presumption that the judge in such situations takes an active role in insuring fairness
in the trial. A participant in Hopkinsville said, “I have trouble with the judge letting it happen.”
(Hopkinsville, p. 31) In London, a participant said, “It should have been the responsibility also
of the judge to realize it, that the lawyer was asleep.” (London, p. 17) A Pikeville participant
asked, “Why did the judge allow that defense lawyer to sleep like that? How’d he get away with
that in court?” (Pikeville, p. 25)

Although participants revealed a fundamental presumption that a judge would insure justice or at
least equitable representation in a capital murder case, when questioned further, some
participants also had ready reasons why a judge might not intervene. Those reasons included
being under time pressure, being close to the defense lawyer through the good-old-boy network,
and feeling sorry for an aging lawyer who was near retirement.

Participants did not seem to connect ineffective counsel with unfair or unjust convictions, even
though they were somewhat aware of the possibility of innocent people ending up with death
sentences and other harsh punishment. For the most part, participants did not take into account
the skill of the defense attorney when considering the appropriateness of convictions and
punishments. Instead, they presumed a convicted person had committed the crime for which he
or she was convicted and therefore deserved appropriate (or “maximum”) punishment.

In spite of their rejection of systemic arguments about the lack of justice or faimess of the death
penalty, the important finding from this section remains the majority view that both Robert
Carter and Calvin Burdine deserved more lenient sentences than the ones the courts actually
dealt them. The differences between espoused belief about strict punishment and the actual
assignment of lenient punishments to these two men apparently can be ascribed to the
moderating effect of having available information about a few human factors in the convicted
criminals.

Cc. News about the death penalty

This section addresses participants’ responses to questions about sources of information
regarding the death penalty.

Interview Question 4: Where do you get most of your information about criminal justice and the
death penalty?

Participants responded to this question by describing where they get their news about crime and
violence, not just the death penalty. By far the most frequent source of information, as
participants reported it, is television, followed by newspapers. People reported that they attend
to these television sources:
Justice Files

American Justice

America’s Most Wanted

Court TV

Judge Judy

Family Law

20/20

Sixty Minutes

Discovery Channel shows on the criminal system
Cable television stories and news
Law and Order

Several participants said they read about issues related to the justice system. One person
particularly reported reading Chuck Colson’s writing and The Bible (London, p. 20), and one
person mentioned reading the novel In Cold Blood (Lexington, p. 18).

Other sources mentioned much less often were “right leaning” radio, people in prison or with
prison experience, and religious leaders. People did not voluntarily suggest religious leaders
except in response to specific interviewer probes.

Interview Question 5: Which of these sources do you consider most trustworthy?

There was no single person, program, newspaper, or other source that anyone suggested that
others in the group rallied around as trustworthy sources. Most people were inclined to treat all
of the sources as untrustworthy in some circumstances. They stressed that they can’t believe just
one source, but rather need to put many sources together and make their own sense out of them.

Interview Question 6: Who would you like to see or hear sharing information about violent
crime and the death penalty?

As with Interview Question 5, participants found this question challenging, and they had no
ready answers. None of the ideas people eventually floated attracted any other support within
that participant group. People nominated such trustworthy sources as these:

The State A ttomey General (Pikeville, p. 32)

Judge Judy (perhaps a humorous nomination) (Lexington, p. 18)

A trusted judge (Hopkinsville, p. 37)

Researchers (perhaps a humorous nomination) (Hopkinsville, p. 37)

Acquaintances or family members who are now or have been in prison (Hopkinsville, p.
37-38)

Congressmen and leaders (London, p. 23)

Families of the victims (London, p. 23)

Chuck Colson (London, p. 24)

People on Death Row (London, p. 24)

D. Discussion about the death penalty
This section addresses participants’ responses to specific pro and con statements about the death
penalty. The pro and con statements related to four categories of arguments about the death
penalty: deterrence, necessity, cost, and fairness.

Interview Question 7: Is the death penalty effective in deterring future violent crime?

People responded to a paragraph of statements supporting the effectiveness of the death penalty
as a crime deterrent and a paragraph stating that the death penalty is not effective as a crime
deterrent. Across the five groups, responses were virtually universal:

The death penalty is not much of a deterrent.
If the death penalty were carried out swiftly, it would be a far more effective deterrent.

In addition to these widely held views, people who supported the death penalty most strongly
said that even though the death penalty is not a deterrent, it is still necessary and just. In
particular they said it brings justice to victims’ families, who are seen as needing that
punishment to be carried out so they can have closure. Among the participants who supported
the death penalty most strongly, a small number called for making the penalty itself harsher and
more public.

Here are several participants’ statements about deterrence and the need for swift follow-through
on the death penalty.

I don’t think it’s a deterrent because I don’t think the people who do these violent
crimes...before they commit the crime that they think, “Oh, now what, if I get caught,
what would my sentence be, would I get the death penalty or would I get life or life
without parole?” I don’t think people think to that degree. I think, more often than not,
violent crimes, it’s an impulse thing. (Hopkinsville, p. 42)

I think one of our problems with our death penalty, with our entire justice system, is it
takes so long from the time the crime is committed ‘til anything is done. (Hopkinsville,
p.41)

I think one of the reasons why they say it does not deter is the fact that...the guy’s on
death row for 17 years? So what? I keep doing...if I’m on death row, I’m going to keep
appealing, and I keep appealing, and I keep appealing. Instead of letting it hang up for 17
years, let’s just give them two years to figure out what they’ re going to do then do it.
(Lexington, p. 23)

Right now, my thinking would be no, right now it’s not a deterrent. But if the law's
going to stricten [sic] up in the state, we’ re going to make it nationwide and we're not
going to be tolerant, it'll kick in. (Pikeville, p. 34)

I don’t believe it deters crime, but I’m still for it anyway. (Lexington, p. 24)
That might be more a deterrent than anything, have public executions where people could

come and see it. Don’t just keep it behind closed doors, let the whole public see it.
(Pikeville, p. 34)
As an adjunct to the belief that the death penalty is not a deterrent, some participants in some of
the groups stated strongly that they believe prison itself is not an awful experience and may even
be better for some inmates than the life they lived when free.

Don’t you think they would probably already have it in their mind anyway that it doesn’t
matter if they get life, that they know they’ re going to have — they’ll have a better life in
prison than they do on the streets? (Hopkinsville, p. 42)

This theme recurs later in consideration of the next set of pro and con statements.

In all groups except Pikeville, a few people picked up on the part of the “con” statement that
indicated that 12 states do not have a death penalty, and that 10 of these states have lower
homicide rates than the national average. Although some participants quickly found ways to
dismiss that statement, participants in both Hopkinsville and London asked more inquiring
questions. They wondered whether the states without the death penalty have a different system
for punishing lesser offenses, or whether they have prevention programs or other approaches to
keeping the lid on crime without imposing the death penalty. The fact that some states do not
have the death penalty seemed to be new information in some of these groups.

Interview Question 8: Is the death penalty necessary as a maximum punishment, now that the
sentence of life without the possibility of parole is available?

Participants responded to a paragraph asserting that the death penalty is necessary, and to one
asserting that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole makes the death penalty
unnecessary.

In four sites, the large majority of participants asserted that the death penalty is necessary, even
though Kentucky now has a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. The reasons are
these:

Participants do not trust that the sentence of life without the possibility of parole is final.
They pointed out that both pardons and escapes could happen. (Both pardons and
escapes were prominent in news stories while the focus groups ran.)

It is important that people who commit awful crimes receive the “maximum
punishment,” particularly as a way to provide closure for victims’ families.

The cost of keeping people in prison for life is unconscionable for taxpayers, compared
with the perceived cheaper cost of executing them.

Life is too good in prison to be appropriate punishment for people who have committed
awful crimes.

In people's consideration of this set of pro and con statements, the strength of their attachment to
the presence of a death penalty in Kentucky became apparent.
The only true safeguard, to me, is the death penalty. People break out of jails...now, if
they only had to stay--live their entire life, that would be a heck of a punishment, to live,
like, 50 years in a prison. That would be, probably, just as a severe punishment as kill
them, but...I just don’t think...a life sentence, there’s any guarantee that they suddenly
aren't going to be able to get out on a legal technicality again, or that they can escape.
(Lexington, p. 26)

To me, being in prison for the rest of my life would be worse than knowing next week
they were going to take my life. But if that were true, and they didn’t have possibility of
parole, I would favor that more than the death penalty, but I still think the death penalty
needs to be in place for certain crimes, like violent crimes. (Hopkinsville, p. 45-46)

The thing that comes to my mind was the school shooting in Colorado... (SOUNDS OF
AGREEMENT) These kids obviously planned to go in there and kill a bunch of innocent
people. If they had not done us the favor of committing suicide, would they not be
deserving of the death penalty, and I think they would. There would be...there’s no
question that they did it, there’s no question they planned it out. This was not a crime of
passion. This was premeditated, remorseless, senseless killing. In my mind they would
have deserved the death penalty. And if you didn’t have that option, you know, I’m not
sure that I would, if I was the parent of one of those children, that I would have been
satisfied with life in prison. I don’t know. (London, p. 43)

Then the worst that anybody could get for anything is being kept for the rest of their life,
which is not good. That’s not good, but it’s not bad enough maybe sometimes. (London,
p. 43)

I feel that it’s necessary just for, you know, the victims and the victims’ families. (NKY,
p. 44)

So as far as a deterrent, I don’t know how they could determine whether it’s going to
deter it. But I think it’s very necessary, like I say, for the victims’ families. (NKY, p.
45)

I can understand how the families wouldn’t have any closure on it, either, even though
he’s in life, you know, in prison for the rest of his life. All they see is their families or
loved ones, you know, they’re dead. (Pikeville, p. 38)

If they took away the pardoning power of the governor, it might be all right in certain
circumstances. But just like it says on here, they can pardon him, a govemor, the
president, can pardon these people and they’1l be out walking the streets again. That’s no
good. (Pikeville, p. 37)

I’ve got two responses. One is that it’s going to cost tremendous money to house them
the rest of your life, and the thing is they’ ve got the possibility of escape. (NKY, p. 48)

The thing nobody’s brought up is the economic side: how much does it cost to keep one
of these guys for 50 years? (Lexington, p. 26)
Here are two exchanges that show the nature of the conversation about prison conditions.

Ts

3:

They don’t have that rough of a time in prison...
Well, no, most of them going around...

They get their drugs, the home brew, the home brew, get television in their
rooms...

Get three meals a day.
VCRs, movies...
Best health insurance going. We’re keeping them up.

Plus, the state takes care of the family while they’re in there. (Pikeville, p. 38)

They had a TV, they had gyms to work out in. They have a lot more.
Unhuh. It’s like a country club.

And they have equal rights.

Yeah.

And they have libraries that they go to.

They have more rights.

And learn how to be attorneys and write up their own appeals.

And they can sue us. (Hopkinsville, p. 46)

Most of the participants in London provided the exception to the otherwise widely shared view
that the death penalty is still necessary even though the state now has the penalty of life without

the possibility of parole. Although two of the eight participants in London consistently said that

the death penalty is necessary and just, the other participants wrestled with the question, and

some said it would be very hard for them to decide that another person should lose his or her life.

These participants also expressed more willingness to give up the death penalty in favor of life
without parole. One participant said, “Well I, for myself, I don’t think I could ever say, you

know, the death penalty...I mean, I don’t think I could ever, you know, give somebody like that.”

(London, p. 32)

Others in the London group said it would be hard to sentence someone to death, but asserted that

the death penalty still seems to be necessary for those who commit the most terrible crimes.
They also emphasized repeatedly the importance of certainty about both intent and guilt.
I personally am not against the death penalty. I don’t know that I’ m...I don’t know that if
I was on ajury, you know, and there was not an eye witness or the person didn’t confess,
that I could ever recommend that sentence, but I think it’s ajust sentence. I mean, I think
if somebody kills somebody, it’s a just sentence, if there is absolutely no doubt that they
did it. (London, p. 33)

I think that the death penalty should be reserved for those few cases like what I’m talking
about, when a kid walks into a school room and 25 kids sitting there watching him, he’s
holding them hostage and he shoots a teacher in front of them. There’s no doubt that he
did it, there’s witnesses, there’s no doubt that he...it was not an accident. (London, p. 46)

A violent act against a child, sexual and murder, I would hate to have to be on that jury.
(London, p. 34)

Interview Question 9: Is the death penalty a prudent use of public funds?

Participants responded to a paragraph offering several statistics about the fact that the death
penalty is more costly than life in prison, along with a paragraph asserting that paying for the
maintenance of killers in relative comfort in jail for life is an inappropriate use of tax dollars.

Reactions from participants, both in words and in body language, indicated that the assertions
showing the costs of the death penalty to be more expensive than life in prison surprised nearly
everyone in all five focus groups. Reactions ranged from curiosity and strong questions to
outright disbelief.

People responded to the cost information in four primary ways:

Some people seemed so taken by surprise that they really did not know how to assess the
accuracy of the information or what to make of it.

Why does it cost so much more for the death penalty? (Hopkinsville, p. 47)

Thad no idea it cost more to put one to death than it would to keep them for life.
(London, p. 36)

That’s what I couldn’ t figure, how could it cost that much to execute someone?
(Pikeville, p. 41)

I don’t believe half — hardly any of it. Put Duke [University] there, that’s a red
flag...so 1 — it’s not — I don’t think you’ re getting a fair balance of the cases
there, but I don’t think those facts are true. (Lexington, p. 28-29)

And why does it cost so much to kill somebody? (NKY, p 50)

Nobody here was under the impression that it costs this kind of money to convict
somebody, and if they’re convicted, give them the death penalty. (NKY, p. 51)
People assumed that the reason for the extreme cost of the death penalty had to do with
the number and complexity of appeals, which they almost universally dislike and even
resent.

I just think something’s really screwed up in the system if it costs that much.
(London, p. 38)

I think they should have a period of years to get their appeals in. If they don’t,
then that’s it. (Hopkinsville, p. 48)

They don’t need all these appeals. (Lexington, p. 29)

Some people asserted that they did not care about the costs, and said they value the death
penalty even though it might costs more.

I think the government...that doesn’ t enter into my way of thinking, is their
inappropriate use of tax dollars. The government wastes enough money that I
don’t...that’s why that hasn’t come into, really into play for me, as much money
as they waste, they can spend it on justice. (Pikeville, p. 40)

It don’t matter how much more it costs, in some cases the death penalty should be
implemented. (Pikeville, p. 41)

Y ou can’t put a price on justice, as far as I’m concerned. (Pikeville, p. 41)

A few people became curious about the cost issue and indicated both in response to this
specific question and in their final suggestions that information on costs might have a
persuasive impact on them.

Interview Question 10: Is the death penalty fair, and can it be administered fairly?

In northem Kentucky, participants considered four distinct sets of statements regarding the
fairness or unfairness of the death penalty. Participants in the four other groups responded to
one combined set of statements. In the combined statement, reasons the death penalty is unfair
included assertions that it is arbitrary, that innocent people may be wrongly convicted, that it is
unjustly meted out to poor people and people of color, and that lack of effective counsel for
many renders the process unjust. The statement supporting fairness asserted that the death
penalty is fair because “it causes criminals to experience something of what they have caused
others to experience.” This is, essentially, the “eye for an eye” argument to which most
participants in the focus groups seem strongly committed.

The views with regard to arguments about fairness were quite widely shared across the five
groups.

The assertion that the death penalty is arbitrary because not all those who are eligible for
it receive it did not create many responses at all. This argument did not impress the
northen Kentucky participants, who had more time to consider it, nor any others who
mentioned it in the other sessions. In all groups people agreed that the question of
faimess should be limited to whether the death penalty is a fair penalty for an individual
who has committed a specific crime. Participants were not persuaded to consider the
death penalty unfair because of the inequities in its administration.

I would say, is the death penalty fair and can it be administered fairly? Yes. Will
it be administered perfectly? No. (NKY, p. 43)

Given the fact that we don’t live in a perfect society, I’d say it’s generally a fair
law. (NKY, p.43)

One person suggested the need for broader application of the death penalty to meet
fairness concerns:

Why is it that only one person in 12 is actually given the death penalty? Why not
all 12 of them? I want to know what the reason is that the other 11 didn’t get it,
because if ] had my way, they certainly would get it, all of them. There wouldn’t
be any arbitrary thing. (Lexington, p. 35)

The argument that administration of the death penalty is affected by racial basis did not
persuade any participants. The few participants who mentioned race said they disagreed
with the assertion that the death penalty disproportionately affect people of color.

In northem Kentucky, where participants had an opportunity to respond to a specific set
of statements about racial justice or lack of it in administration of the death penalty, the
rejection of the argument was as strong as in all the other sites. Again, for participants
the question seemed to be whether an individual person had in fact committed a crime for
which he or she had received the death penalty. A rbitrariness or discrimination in the
system seemed beyond the range of issues participants were willing to address. People
insisted, instead, that concems about racism should not be considered in the same context
as concems about inequities in the justice system.

Law has nothing to do with your skin color. Now whether, in a particular county,
a prosecutor goes after individuals much more zealously than in another county,
that is a problem for that county to resolve, but that doesn’t make the death
penalty fair or unfair. (NKY, p. 42)

Two separate issues. One has to do with race relations in a society and the other
has to do with justice and they’ re two separate issues. (NKY, p. 41)

Nobody here could probably argue with any of this. I mean, we’re bombarded
with it everyday — minority this, minority that — whatever. Nobody said it was
fair. I believe it’s not fair, but I believe it’s very true. But, in my opinion,
somebody lays dead and you're guilty, you forfeited your life. (NKY, p. 41)

Another thing was the thing about the racial bias. From all the executions you
have seen, the biggest majority were white. So you know, I do not agree with the
thing that there’s racism in there. (London, p. 41)
I think it’s unfair to say that they execute more black people than what they do
white people. If they do, it’s because they commit the crimes. (Pikeville, p.44.)

Regarding the argument that the death penalty is unfair because it can result in the death
of innocent people, most participants in the focus groups did not express an enormous
amount of alarm about this possibility. They seemed aware of the increased attention to
people who have been found innocent. Many made statements suggesting they believe
DNA testing will solve all future questions of guilt and innocence. A few participants
said they are not concerned with the fact that some innocent people may be executed.
They consider that loss of innocent life a reasonable price for continuing to be able to
apply the death penalty in appropriate situations. One person in northem Kentucky
argued that the loss of innocent lives is similar to the loss of life in a war.

I don’t want to offend anybody here...90 people [who have been released from
Death Row after being found innocent]. And I’ll tell you what, we sent people to
Viet Nam, we sent people to World War II that were killed, and I’m sure they
didn’t want to die. I don’t see any problem with 90 people...that happens. The
system’s not perfect. (NKY, p. 37)

Even though concern about wrongfully convicting innocent people did not attract a great
deal of attention or elicit a lot of conversation during the groups, this concern did show
up several times in the final portion of the session as some participants’ best argument
against the death penalty.

The assertions that the death penalty is unfair because many people accused of capital
crimes receive ineffective counsel elicited similar responses across the five groups. Most
participants seemed to agree that the quality of representation in capital cases is tied
directly to money, and that those who have no money have very bad lawyers.

That's where it all comes to money. If you've got money you can get by, but if
you don’t, you're gone. (Pikeville, p. 45)

In Hopkinsville, a participant asserted that probably ninety percent of the poor people in
the criminal justice system have very poor representation and other members of the group
agreed. One participant said, “I don’t think court-appointed attorneys do their job.”
(Hopkinsville, p. 32) Another said, “They start off with passion but the system soon
wears them down.” (Hopkinsville, p. 32) Another participant added, “If you can afford
to pay for a good attomey, and the ones that have a good attorney, the people that have
money, have the good attomeys. The ones that do not get the court-appointed ones.”
(Hopkinsville, p. 32) A fourth participant added “It’s not fair.” (Hopkinsville, p. 32)
And a fifth said:

Money talks, and then the guilty person walks, and that’s...that’s not fair. But if
you've got enough money to cover it and you've got a good attomey, or you can
grease enough palms, you can walk away...slapped on the wrist, give you
probation and...or shock probation and you re out and gone again. (Hopkinsville,
p. 32-33)
A participant in Lexington said, “I don’t think and I’ve never thought justice was the
same fora rich man as a poor man. It’s not.” (Lexington, p. 34) Another Lexington
participant said, “A public defender is not the same as a Dream Team.” (Lexington, p.
38)

Here is an additional exchange from the Lexington group:

9: Money, I’m sure, does buy some influence in a courtroom. It probably
has some effect.

6: It buys freedom, too.

9: Yeah. But still you’ve got 15 years to get a decent lawyer. (Lexington, p.
38)

In spite of a widespread agreement that the quality of representation is affected by
money, participants did not see that as a reason to abolish the death penalty. Their
presumptions seemed to be that a person had either committed a capital crime or not.
Participants said it may be unfair for a person to receive ineffective counsel, but that in
itself is not a reason for the person to go unpunished. A Lexington participant said, “I
think it’s too bad the rich guy got off, but I don’t think the poor guy should get off
because the rich guy got off.” (Lexington, p. 34)

At times as they considered the impact of ineffective counsel on the justice system,
participants revealed a deep-seated belief that the American system of justice is
fundamentally fair, although it may have rough spots. Their responses suggested that
somehow, somewhere, someone can rectify the injustice of people having lawyers who
don’t represent them well. Participants seemed to find it hard to believe it might be
otherwise. Some said that the accused person was responsible for ensuring the
effectiveness of her/his own counsel, whether court-appointed or not.

That judge is sitting there overseeing. It’s that judge’s fault, just as much as the
guy sitting there being tried, for letting his lawyer
sit there and sleep, so why didn’t that judge say,
“Look, he’s sleeping?” If everybody else seen it
why didn’t he see it? (Lexington, p. 37)

What would the judge do with me as a juror sitting there sleeping? I know I’d
have been standing in front of him wanting to know why I'd been sleeping. And
everyone here says it does happen with an attorney; I just find that hard to
believe. (NKY, p. 38)

Like I said, at any given time, you have the right to counsel, just like it says in the
law and the law says you can fire and chose your attorney at anytime if you don’t
feel comfortable. So if you don’t stand up and speak for yourself, I’m sorry,
you re guilty. (Lexington, p. 36)
The poor person or the rich person, give them the same lawyers and the same
amount of attention. And have, maybe just a basic fund set up that whether
you re rich or poor this is all you can use on it, and set a cap on it kind of like
they’ re trying to do for the elections and stuff. Y ou know, set a cap on it and let
the rich man spend no more, don’t let the poor man spend no more. That gives
everybody the same chance. (Pikeville, p. 48)

It wouldn’t be too far fetched, I think, you know, for the state attorney’s office to
have overseers, I mean people physically sitting on the trials, on these trials, and
seeing that the person receives enough fair representation. (Pikeville, p. 49)

The government watchdog is supposed to be working for us, but we need
watchdogs to watch them. I mean who’s going to be...who’s it going to be up to?
The public? I mean are we going to have to get our own watchdog? (Pikeville, p.
49-50)

But they have the right to ask for another attorney. (Hopkinsville, p. 29)

The system failed him and he failed to act or say something at the time. Letting
everything run its course and then go, “Oh, wait a minute. My lawyer was
asleep.” That's like saying, “Y eah, I saw the red light,” after you've run through it
and hit five cars. (Hopkinsville, p. 30)

Ultimately, though participants had some knowledge of innocent people wrongfully convicted
and then released, and though they generally agreed that money determined the effectiveness of
counsel, any concerns they had about fairness were not enough to weaken their support for the

death penalty.
discrimination.

Participants particularly rejected faimess claims based on arbitrariness or racial
E. Best arguments

This section addresses participants’ responses to a request that they write down and then discuss
their best arguments for and against the death penalty.

Interview Question 11: What is the best argument for the death penalty and what is the best
argument against the death penalty?

By far the most frequently cited argument in favor of the death penalty is that it is a just
punishment for someone who has taken a life. People used terms relating to accountability,
punishment to fit the crime, and “eye for an eye.” Of the 49 participants invited to give their
best arguments, 26 said, in some way, that a person who take another's life deserve to lose his or
her own. Other arguments included a sense that the death penalty is final and certain, “the only
punishment that is forever;” ten people held this view. Belief that the death penalty is the only
way to comfort, protect, and bring closure for the victims’ families was very strong in northem
Kentucky, where seven people included it as a major argument. They were joined by two people
in other groups. Seven participants advocated for the death penalty as a form of protection for
society because the killer would be dead. Six people said they believed the death penalty deters
other people from committing murder, and five people said they believe the death penalty saves
tax dollars.

There were far fewer arguments against the death penalty. A significant number of people left
their cards blank, or simply said they could think of no good argument against the death penalty.
The argument that people have ineffective lawyers or unfair trials seemed strong to 14
participants. Eleven participants said that the possible innocence of the person convicted of
murder seemed the strongest argument to them. Four people indicated that the costs of carrying
out the death penalty was a persuasive factor for them.

Overall, the best arguments for the death penalty gave additional emphasis to the reasons
participants stated throughout the session for their support of the death penalty. The best
arguments against the death penalty were less useful for deepening understanding, because
participants had already made it plain that their two main recommendations — concerns about
wrongful convictions and ineffective counsel — were not enough to diminish their support for
the death penalty. The information about cost as a possible valid argument against the death
penalty holds some promise, however.
IV. Appendices
Appendix A: Methodology
1, Background

In January and February 2001 Roberts & Kay, Inc. (RKI) conducted five focus groups for the
Kentucky Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (KCADP). Each group was composed of
European A merican/white participants between the ages of 36 and 64 who expressed mild to
moderate support for the death penalty.

Three of the groups were composed of male participants and took place in these Kentucky sites:
northern Kentucky (this group included people from several adjoining counties); Pikeville
(eastern Kentucky), and Lexington (central Kentucky). Two of the groups were composed of
female participants and took place in these Kentucky sites: Hopkinsville (westem Kentucky) and
London (southeastem Kentucky). RKI and members of the Coalition selected these sites for
both geographical and political reasons.

2. Purpose

The focus groups aimed to discover the views that present supporters of the death penalty hold
about the justice and effectiveness of the death penalty, and the necessity forit. In addition, the
researchers used the focus groups to explore what kinds of messages might be most effective in
softening participants’ views toward opposition of the death penalty, and to determine the most
effective way for the Coalition to present those messages during its next advertising campaign.

3. Format

The researchers worked with members and leaders of KCADP to identify the questions the
research would address and to develop the discussion guide for the groups. The researchers
conducted a pilot group with University of Kentucky law students to determine the workability
of the questions. A fter the first focus group, in northern Kentucky, the researchers modified the
questions one final time, and used the Interview Guide presented in A ppendix D in the remaining
four focus groups.

A total of 49 people participated in the five focus groups, each of which lasted approximately
two hours. A male researcher facilitated the male focus groups, while a female researcher
facilitated the female focus groups. Wherever possible, the researchers encouraged
conversations that revealed the attitudes and values underlying participants’ opinions.

4. Participant Recruitment

The researchers worked with an advisory group formed by KCADP to identify the desired
characteristics of the participants and to determine any categories of people who needed to be
excluded from the effort. A professional market research and opinion polling firm randomly
recruited a total of 73 people, of whom 49 appeared and participated. Appendix B presents the
demographics of the focus group participants. Appendix C contains the screener used to recruit
participants for the focus groups.
5. Analysis

The researchers used audiotapes of each focus group conversation to produce verbatim
transcripts. The transcripts were modified only to exclude the identities of the participants. The
researchers reviewed the transcripts in order to identify themes, underlying reasons for opinions,
ideas that stand out as different, and patterns and systems of meaning that make the opinions
more coherent. The researchers excerpted some participants’ statements to explain themes,
points, or patterns noted in the report.

6. Caution A bout Generalizing to a Larger Population

This study, based on a set of focus groups with a random sample of participants, is a form of
qualitative research that permits exploring the opinions, values, attitudes, and perceptions of a
relatively small number of people in some depth. Qualitative research aims at discovering
previously unknown opinion patterns, describing points of view in detail, and generating insights
based on lengthier investigations with a small number of people. The results of qualitative
research cannot be used to predict the responses of larger populations with statistical accuracy.
Instead, qualitative research results are intended to deepen understanding of complex issues,
questions, and problems as a carefully selected cross-section of people see them.
Appendix B: Demographics
=AQ9*

Age Education Level Income Level (In thousands) Religion
35- | 45- |55- PLH |H |S |C | PC [Under $25- | $50- |$75- |$1007B {|C| C |M|N|N
44 {54 [64 FS |S |C |G |G $25 49 74 99 + H D
Hopkinsvil
le 5) 3 3 2/)3)4]1 1 2 7 1 1 6 1 3
(11
Females)
Lexington
(9 Males) 2 6 1 1]/3|3] 2 4 4 1 2 2/41 1
London
(8 4 3 1 4/1/11] 2 1 7 6 1
Females)
N.
Kentucky 4 3 5 1]5])2/)4 1 6 5 1/8 2 1
(12 Males)
Pikeville*
(9 Males) 3 3 2 11313 1 2 5 1 5 1 2
30-Males | 18 | 18 12 4/16/13} 9 | 6 6 23 12 6 1 21/8) 4]3)2) 6
Totals 0
Education Level Religion
LH =Lessthan highschool 4 B= _ Baptist 20
HS = Highschool 16 C= — Catholic 8
SC = Some college 13 CH= Christian 4
CG = College graduate 9 M= Methodist 3
PCG = Post college graduate 6 N= _ None 2
ND = Non-denomination 6
O= Other 3
P= Presbyterian 1
PR= __ Protestant 1

* There was one participant in Pikeville for whom they are no demographics other than gender.

Appendix D: Interview Guide
Criminal J ustice Focus Groups
2001 Focus Groups
Interview Guide
Elapsed Time 0:05

Opening and Introductions [10 minutes]

Welcome, introductions, preliminaries, ground rules
Thank people for coming, help yourselves to food.
Mention general focus of conversation: safety, crime, and appropriate punishment
Check verbally on comfort factors: refreshments, any needed materials

Introduce self. (“I'll be your moderator.” ); avoid giving personal information that could
sway opinions

Tum on tape recorder, explain its use.

Do introductions, using first names only. What would you be doing tonight if you
weren't here?

State the ending time for the session.

Remind people how much they are appreciated.

Explain the nature of this structured conversation.

It is aimed at getting a lot of information in short amount of time.
It is somewhat structured. (I came with QUESTIONS.)

The facilitator is fully in charge of pace (participants can relax.)

We are asking the same questions of individuals and groups in four other places in
Kentucky.

Explain the way in which confidentiality is protected: no names or identities are ever
used in the reports from the sessions. First names used during the session are taken out
of written transcripts.

Ask group members to hold each other's identities and opinions in confidence.
Emphasize that all comments and opinions are right and valued. Y ou will not be asking
questions that have wrong answers.

The purpose of the session is to see how many opinions there are about each topic. This
is not about forced choice. The purpose is not to reach consensus or persuade each other.
Strongly encourage people to state their personal opinions, no matter what opinions
others in the group may hold.

Explain that you will be the guide. As much as possible, encourage people to speak one
at a time, but assure them that if they get animated, you will help sort it all out and get it
recorded for analysis.

Let people know that you may occasionally rush some section of the discussion they find
interesting, and may even have to interrupt some people to move on to new topics or new
speakers. On the other hand, they may notice you pulling more information from more
people than they think is necessary. Remind them that you will be the one to worry about
all this, and you will make your decisions based on what the sponsor needs to know.

Ask people to speak for themselves alone.

Check for agreement. ("Those are my ground rules. Can you agree to live them for the
next hour and a half?")

Ask if there are any questions.

Elapsed Time 0:15
A.

1.

Discussion of crime and sense of safety/risk [10 minutes]

Tonight we are here to talk about crime and ourjustice system. Let's start where we are,

What are you hearing or seeing about crime here in this community?
> If the conversation stays on the level of less serious crime, add a prompt:

“How about violent crime?” And add the word “violent” as necessary to
the following questions.

In your view, is the crime situation here getting better, worse, or staying about the
same?

In your everyday life, how safe do you feel?

> If the conversation does not center on safety from violent crime, ask “How safe
do you feel from violent crime?”

In what ways does concern about crime affect how you personally act, think, and
feel?

What would make you feel safer and less concerned about crime?
> Probe, if needed: If you were advising
government on how to improve
safety, what would you suggest?

Elapsed time 0:25
Elapsed time 0:25
Discussion about punishment and the justice system [40 minutes]

What are your impressions of the way people who commit violent crimes are punished in
this country?

Now I am going to ask you to imagine that you are a group called together to think about
the best ways to handle some of the tough issues that face our justice system. I am going
to give you some specific examples of crimes people have committed and ask you to
figure out what their punishment should be. We are going to work on these in a couple of
stages. I’ll ask you to share your reasoning about your decisions, to think out loud as we
move through these. There are no right answers to these situations. It’s okay to get
stumped, find you are in conflict with yourself, and feel like changing your mind.

I will read the card the description of each crime, and you can also read it for yourself.
Then write on the card what you think the punishment should be. I will ask you to share
what you wrote with the whole group, and give your reasoning. Eventually I’ll ask you
to pass the cards back to me. Y ou don’t need to put your name on them.

[Pass out cards and consider one at a time, in this order: green, blue.]

***INFO about Calvin Burdine is available at the end of this guide; use only if
needed, only at the end of the focus group.

Green: Robert Carter was convicted of killing 18-year old Sylvia Reyes in Houston,
Texas, on June 24, 1981, during a robbery at a gas station where she worked. Carter said
that he was with three acquaintances when one of them suggested they rob a particular
gas station. In the car on the way to the station, one of the other men gave Carter a gun.
Carter said the gun accidentally discharged as he was trying to uncock it. Robert Carter
waived his right to have a lawyer present after he was arrested, and he confessed to the
murder.

Blue: Calvin Burdine was convicted of the murder of his former roommate, W. T. Wise,
in April, 1983, when Burdine and co-defendant Doug McK reight went to the roommate’s
apartment to demand money owed to Burdine. McKreight confessed to the murder.
Burdine first confessed to taking money while denying that he had helped kill the victim.
In asecond confession, he said he had helped to kill his former roommate. Calvin
Burdine later retracted the second confession, saying police had made it up.
(A fter reading the card:) Now I’d like to hear what your thoughts and feelings are about
the information on the card.

What punishment did you think was appropriate for this crime? [Get a general
sense. ]

What are your reasons for suggesting the punishment should be 2

[If there are multiple levels of punishment suggested, take each one at a time.]

What other information might affect your decision about what the appropriate
punishment should be?

Now I want to give you some more information about these cases, and ask you to think
about whether the information makes a difference in your thinking about the way the
criminal justice system works. Please work by yourself as you consider what you first
wrote down, and what you leamed from the conversation here. Then write down your
thoughts now about appropriate punishment on this second card. Y ou may or may not
have changed your mind from your earlier views. Either way is fine. When you're
ready, I’ll ask you to tell the others what you wrote on your second card.

[One at a time, in this order]

Green: Robert Carter was 17 years old when he was arrested for the murder of Sylvia
Reyes. This was his first offense. His family was one of the poorest in a very poor
neighborhood in Houston. His mother and stepfather beat their six children with wooden
switches, belts, and electrical cords. The abuse was so severe that he experienced brain
damage. He suffered repeated head injuries, including being hit on the head with a brick
and a dinner plate. When he was 10 he was hit on the head by a baseball bat so hard that
the bat broke. Shortly before the murder, Robert Carter’s brother shot him in the head,
and a bullet lodged near his temple. He suffered seizures and fainting spells, but never
received medical attention for any of his injuries. His defense lawyers offered no
evidence of his low mental function, brain damage, or history of abuse. In 1986, five
years after the murder, Robert Carter’s IQ was found to be 74, on the margins of mental
retardation. Robert Carter was executed in 1998, in Texas.
What punishment did you think was appropriate for this crime? [Get a
general sense.]

What are your reasons for suggesting the punishment should be 2

[If there are multiple levels of punishment suggested, take each one at a time.]

> Probe to find the reasoning behind any changes in views, or behind any
restatements of views that are not changed.

> How are your thoughts and feelings about punishment affected by the fact that
Robert Carter was legally a juvenile at the time of the trial? (17 years and three
months old, if you want to say that)

>Do you think this case is representative of cases involving juvenile offenders?

How does the additional information impact your thinking about the way the
death penalty is carried out?

Blue: Calvin Burdine had no lawyer present when he first confessed to stealing money he
believed he was owed. He had no lawyer present when he later confessed to helping kill
his former roommate, a crime to which his co-defendant, Doug McKreight, had already
confessed. Calvin Burdine’s sole lawyer, Joe Cannon, slept through significant portions
of the capital murder trial. The clerk for the trial judge testified in 1995 that lawyer
Cannon “was asleep for long periods of time during the questioning of witnesses.” Three
jurors testified at a hearing that the lawyer, who was in his mid-sixties at the time and is
now deceased, did most of his sleeping after lunch. Lawyers who are now handling
Burdine’s appeal argue that Cannon did such a poor job that it amounted to “ineffective
assistance of counsel,” a violation of the Constitution. Calvin Burdine’s appeals have so
far failed to gain him a new trial. He remains on Death Row.
What punishment did you think was appropriate for this crime? [Get a
general sense.]

What are your reasons for suggesting the punishment should be
?

[If there are multiple levels of punishment suggested, take each one at a time.]

> Probe to find the reasoning behind any changes in views, or behind any
restatements of views that are not changed.

>Do you think this case is representative of the legal defense provided for poor
people in our criminal justice system?

> How are your thoughts and feelings about punishment affected by the fact that
Calvin Burdine may not have had effective legal counsel at his trial?

Does the additional information make any difference in your thinking about the
death penalty?

Take up all the cards. (For later analysis.)

Elapsed time 1:05
Cc.

News about the death penalty [10 minutes]

We want to shift now from particular cases to general issues, and ask you to discuss the general
opinions you hold.

4.

Where do you get most of your information about criminal justice and the death penalty?
> Prompt, if not mentioned:

Newspaper?

Radio? (Which type?)
Magazines?

Movies?

News magazine TV shows?
National TV news?
Friends/acquaintances?
Religious leader?

Which of these sources do you consider most trustworthy?
> Probe for reasons

Who would you like to see or hear sharing information about violent crime and the death
penalty?

Elapsed time 1:15

Discussion about the death penalty [30 minutes]

Now as we change the subject a little bit and also change the way you are working
together, I invite you to continue as the imaginary group brought together to consider
how to address tough issues. One of the most important parts of the system of justice in
any state has to do with whether and when a person convicted of a violent crime receives
the death penalty. Kentucky law permits a death penalty sentence in cases such as these:
when murder is committed along with another serious crime — for example, a robbery
when the victim is killed, killing more than one person, killing a police officer, or raping
and killing the victim. Recently, Kentucky law was changed to make it possible for
people convicted of violent crimes to receive a sentence of life in prison without the
possibility of parole. That means that a person who receives this sentence will be in
prison for all her/his natural life.

I am going to ask you to consider arguments that have been made both for and against the
death penalty, and I would like you to talk with each other about them, and how they
might affect advice you would give on improving the justice system.
The first area of conflict between people who support the death penalty and people who
oppose it has to do with deterrence. I’m going to read statements on both sides of this
question, and then I'll ask for quick responses. This is a complex issue, and it’s okay to
find both the statements in a pair make good points. The question is, Is the death penalty
effective in deterring future violent crime?

Here are a pair of statements on both sides of the question.

Al. The death penalty is not effective in deterring future crime. 12 states do not have
the death penalty. Ten of these 12 states have homicide rates below the national
average. Studies have shown that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in
states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states
without the death penalty. The murder rate in Canada dropped 34 percent in the
20 years after Canadians abolished the death penalty. And if we look closer to
home, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader, on the night of July 1, 1997,
when convicted murderer Harold McQueen was being executed in Eddyville, a
person in Lexington committed a crime very similar to McQueen's by robbing a
convenience store and killing the clerk. The death penalty has failed as a crime
deterrent.

A2. The death penalty is effective in deterring crime. Since the number of executions
began increasing after the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, the
rate of violent crime has dropped significantly in the United States. According to
statistics from the U.S. Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice, there were 48
violent crimes per 1000 people in the U.S. in 1976; that number dropped to 32.1
violent crimes per 1000 people in 1999. Deterrence is working.

What are your first responses to these statements? [Probe further as
appropriate.]

Now I'd like to ask you to talk with each other about the statements you found
most compelling, and what made you think so.

What caught your attention?
What was it about that fact or argument that impressed you?

What are your best thoughts about how to make punishment for violent crime
more effective in deterring future crime?

8. Now I would like you to consider another area of disagreement. Is the death penalty
necessary as a maximum punishment, now that life without the possibility of parole is
available in Kentucky?
I have one set of statements related to this issue.

Bl.

B2.

The death penalty is necessary, even though Kentucky now has the sentence of
life without possibility of parole. Unless we actually put people to death when
they kill others, we can never feel completely sure that they have been
appropriately punished. The laws could change at any time, or a pardon get
issued and a convicted killer would be back on the streets. The families of the
victims would have no certainty that justice was done. The only safeguard against
that is the death penalty.

The sentence of life imprisonment without a possibility of parole makes the death
penalty unnecessary. What could be a more horrible punishment than being in
prison and having to live with your crime for the rest of your life? This sentence
does protect society by keeping convicted criminals away from the rest of us. In
addition, if it turns out later that a mistake has been made and the person is
actually innocent, it will not be too late to correct the mistake, at least partially.

What are your first responses to these statements? [Probe further as
appropriate. ]

Now I'd like to ask you to talk with each other about the statements you found
most compelling, and what made you think so.

What caught your attention?
What was it about that fact or argument that impressed you?
What are your best thoughts about whether the death penalty is necessary now

that Kentucky has a law providing for a life sentence without the possibility of
parole?
Now I would like you to consider a third area of disagreement: Is the death penalty a
prudent use of public funds?

I have one set of statements related to this issue.

Cl.

C2.

The death penalty is not a prudent use of public funds. It is actually cheaper for
taxpayers to keep a person in prison for life than to put him or her to death. A
1993 study at Duke University showed that each execution in North Carolina cost
$2.6 million more than life imprisonment. Death penalty cases in Texas cost an
average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a
single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. Counties that must support
the expenses of death penalty trials are finding they must cut other services. In
Indiana, three recent capital cases cost taxpayers a total of over $2 million, just
for defense costs. These costs do not include the costs of appeals. Eliminating
the death penalty would save tax dollars.

People ought to feel good about the use of their tax dollars to promote justice. If
we do not use the death penalty to execute our worst criminals, we have to keep
paying taxes to support them for years. That’s offensive. It seems wrong that
taxpayers have to keep paying for food, housing, clothing, TVs, and medical care
for convicted killers for the rest of their lives. The victims are dead, and we
maintain the killers in relative comfort. The death penalty is necessary so we can
avoid this inappropriate use of tax dollars.

What are your first responses to these statements? [Probe further as
appropriate. ]

Now I'd like to ask you to talk with each other about the statements you found
most compelling, and what made you think so.

What caught your attention?

What was it about that fact or argument that impressed you?

What are your best thoughts about whether the death penalty is a prudent use of
public funds?
10.

The last area of disagreement we'll consider is fairness. Is the death penalty fair, and
can it be administered fairly?

Here are the statements:

D1.

D2.

The death penalty is not fair because it is arbitrary. A bout one person in twelve
convicted of capital murder receives the death penalty. In Kentucky, roughly five
percent of the people convicted of crimes for which the death penalty is a
possibility receive the death sentence. Another way the death penalty is unfair is
that innocent people sometimes get sentenced to death. At least 90 people have
been released from death row since 1976 because of new evidence of their
innocence or because the evidence against them was deeply flawed.

The death penalty is unfair because so many people on death row are poor and
can’t afford their own lawyer. Documented stories about death row include
information about lawyers who were alcoholics, who called no witnesses, who
prepared no pleadings or even missed court deadlines, who had never before
handled a criminal case, or who were under discipline by bar associations.

The application of the death penalty has been affected too much by racial bias to
be fair. Defendants who are people of color are more likely to receive the death
penalty than defendants who are white. Similarly, defendants who are accused of
murdering white victims are more likely to receive the death penalty than
defendants accused of murdering people of color. This lack of faimess has been
pointed out in numerous studies.

The death penalty is fair because it causes criminals to experience something of
what they have caused others to experience. In the words of Judge Alex
Kozsinski of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, “Most of us continue to
believe that those who show utter contempt for human life by committing
remorseless, premeditated murder justly forfeit the right to their own life.”

People on death row receive years and years of attention from the court system.
Nobody is executed without having more than fair opportunities to prove he or
she is innocent or to present mitigating factors to judges and juries. The courts
require that every person accused of a capital crime have a lawyer. The courts
even assign a lawyer when the person can’t pay. That’s one way our tax dollars
go toward making sure that justice can be carried out, and that people on death
row now get a fair shake.

With regard to racial bias, more white people than black people are on death row,
and more white people have been executed. If the percentage of blacks being
executed is higher than the percentage of black people in the population, it must
mean that blacks have committed more violent crimes. The death penalty is fairly
applied to all races.
11.

Now I'd like to ask you to talk with each other about the statements you found most compelling,
and what made you think so.

What caught your attention?

What was it about that fact or argument that impressed you?

Now that you have heard these different views about faimess, what are your own best
ideas about how the justice system could become more fair in dealing with violent crime

and the death penalty?

Elapsed time 1:45

Best Arguments (10 minutes)
The last thing I’d like to ask you to do is take this card and write down one thing on each side of
it. You don’t need to sign it. On one side the card says, “Best Argument FOR the death penalty”
and on the other side is says “Best Argument AGAINST the death penalty.” Just put a few quick
words on there to let me know what stood out for you the most on both sides of this issue. Then
we'll briefly discuss your responses and I'll ask you to hand those cards in to me.

Hand out cards

Let's start with the best arguments for the death penalty. What stands out for you?

Now the best arguments against the death penalty. What stands out for you

Elapsed time 1:55

Closing [5 minutes]

Thank

you for coming, and travel safely. I have your envelopes ready for you.

Elapsed time 2:00

Additional information, if people ask for it

Of the

people whose cases we (partially) described,
Robert Carter was executed in 1998, in Texas.

Alvin Goodwin was executed on January 18, 2001, in Texas.

Calvin Burdine is on death row in Texas. With regard to Calvin Burdine, a three judge panel of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently decided 2-1 that Mr. Burdine could not
prove he was harmed by his lawyer's sleeping through significant portions of his trial for capital
murder. In a move that is apparently unusual, however, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit — 14 judges — agreed to review the ruling of the three judge panel. The full Court
review was scheduled for Monday, January 22, 2001. Meanwhile, Burdine’s co-defendant,
Doug McKreight, who confessed to the murder for which Burdine has been sentenced to death,
has been paroled.

Harvey Green was executed in North Carolina in 1999.

Facts about juveniles and the death penalty:

In the U.S., 12 states don’t have the death penalty [If asked: Alaska, Hawaii, lowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin]
and another 15 have laws preventing the execution of juveniles. That leaves 23 states, including
Kentucky, that execute juveniles. We join only Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria as
countries that have executed juveniles in recent years

Sources of more information (on the web):

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org; www.prodeathpenalty.com