If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov.

.1

102742 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice.

Permission to reproduce this c0pyrigl1ted material has been gra~lic Domain/Bureau of ,Justice

Statistics/O.S. De~t. of Justice to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS).

Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the c~9ttt owner. U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics

'\ ' I'J"}J •. Capital Punishment, 1985·

Eight states executed a total of 18 prisoners during 1985, bringing the total Status of death penalty as of 12/31/85 and 1985 executions number of executions to 50 since 1976, the year that the United states Supreme Court upheld the death penal­ ty in three separate cases. Those exe­ cuted during 1985 had spent an average of 5 years and 11 months awaiting exe­ cution, about the same as the average for the 32 previous executions.

During 1985, 273 prisoners were received under sentence of death, 80 had their death sentences vacated or commuted, and 4 died while under sen­ tence of death. At yearend 32 States reported a total of 1,591 prisoners under sentence of death, all for mur­ der. The median time since sentence was imposed was 36 months.

About 2 in 3 offenders under sen­ tence of death for whom such informa­ tion was available had a prior felony No Death penalty In force: conviction; about 1 in 11 had a prior death Executions in 1985 homicide conviction. About 2 in 5 penally No Yes condemned prisoners for whom such in­ IL..-----II [ .. formation was available were in some criminal justice status at the time of the capital offense; half of these were on parole. The rest were either in death during 1985 were also concen­ prison, on escape from prison, or on tra ted in the South (61 %). Twenty October 1986 probation or had charges pending percent Were in the Midwest; 12%, in against them. the West; and 7%, in the Northeast. A This bulletin marks the 55th total of 26 State prison systems consecutive year that capital The majority of those under sen­ received prisoners under sentence of punishment statistics have been tence of death (903) were white; 672 death in 1985. published by the Federal govern­ wet'e black; 11, American Indian; and 5, ment. The cooperation of officials Asian. The median age was nearly 32 The 18 executions in 1985 were in each of the States has been years old. carried out by eight States: 6 in Texas, essential to the continuity of this 3 in Georgia, 3 in Florida, 2 in Virginia, series. The Bureau of Justice About 63% of those under sentence and 1 each in Indiana, Louisiana, Ne~ Statistics gratefully acknowledges of death were held by States in the vada, and South Carolina. Eleven of the contributions of both the State South. Western States held an addi­ those executed were white males and departments of correction and tional 19%; Midwestern States, 14%; seven were black males. offices of the attorney general and the NQdheast, nearly 5%. Florida to the information presented in had the largest number of condemned Fl'Om the beginning of 1977 to the this report. inmates (226), followed by Texas (206), end of 1985, a total of 12 States carried Californit) (170), and Georgia (107). out executions. Over the same period, Steven R. Schlesinger 2,110 persons were admitted to prisons Director Inmates received under sentence of under sentence of death and 889 per- sons were removed from the condemned population as a result of dispositions Persons under sentence of death Number and persons executed, 1953-85 1,591 other than execution (such as resen­ tencing, retrial, or commutation) or .. 1,500 died while awaiting execution). Capital punishment in the courts

On January 21, 1985, the Supreme 1,250 Court in Wainwright v. Witt handed , J down an important decision bearing on the longstanding issue of the constitu­ tionality of excluding persons opposed 1,000 to the death penalty from juries in capital cases. The U.S. Court of Ap­ peals had overturned a death sentence Death-row Inmates imposed by a Florida court on grounds that the tria.l judge had improperly , ; 750 excused a juror who had expressed qualms about imposing a death sen­ tence. The High Court held that, as a matter of principle, any juror can be excused if his views on capital punish­ 500 ment are deemed by the trial judge to "prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties." "" 250 In Ake v. Oklahoma (decided February 26, 1985) the Court rendered a decision related to one aspect of the sanity defense. The court reversed and remanded a State case in which an indigent defendant was not provided the assistance of a psychiatrist to deter­ mine his mental state at the time of specific case," guaranteed by the that improper instructions had been the crime or to rebut the testimony of Eighth Ame[ldment. given to the jury on criminal intent and prosecution psychiatrists as to his that the prosecution had failed to fuHUl future dangerousness (an aggravating Fifth Amendment protection against the requirement to prove the existence factor for capital sentencing in Okla­ "double jeopardy" in a capital sentence of such intent beyond "reasonable homa). The Court of Criminal Appeals was the subject of Heath v. Alabama doubt." in Oklahoma had concluded previously (decided December 3, 1985). In this that the defendant had waived his right case the Supreme Court upheld a death • Heckler v. Chaney (decided March 20, to a court-provided psychiatrist by not sentence imposed by an Alabama trial 1985). This case was brought by in­ raising this claim in his motion for a court on a resident of that State for mates sentenced to death by lethal new trial-a conclusion rejected by the a murder that occurred in Georgia, injection of drugs after the Food and High Court. The Court found that the after he had already been sentenced to Drug Administra tion had denied their defendant's request for an appointed life impl'isonment for the same murder petition to prohibit the use of these psychiatrist at a pretrial conference by a Georgia trial court. At issue was drugs for this purpose. The Court held constituted a preliminary showing that a contract kidnap/murder that began that under the Administrative Proce­ his sanity would be an issue in the trial. with the kidnaping in Alabama and con­ dures Act the Food and Drug Admini­ The Court held that psychiatric assist­ cluded when the victim's body was stration's failure to take enforcement ance should have been provided. found in Georgia. The Georgia con­ action against drugs used for execution viction was for "malice murder" based by lethal in)ection was not subject to In Caldwell v. Mississippi (decided upon a plea entered in exchange for a judicial review. June 11, 1985) the High Court reversed life sentence. The Alabama trial court a death sentence imposed by the trial rejected the claim of double jeopardy • Baldwin v. Alabama (decided June 17, court jury. The court concluded that and subsequently imposed a sentence of 1985). The Court held that Alabama's the prosecution had influenced the jury death for murder during a kidnaping. mandatory death sentence in cases in an unconstitutional manner by em­ The Supreme Court also rejected the where the jury finds the defenqant phasizing, in the closing argument at appellant's claim of double jeopardy guilty of aggravated murder is consti­ the sentencing stage, that a. death concluding that the "dual sovereignty" tutional because the statute provided sentence would ultimately be reviewed doctrine did not bar successive prose­ that the trial judge can set aside the for correctness by the State Supreme cutions by two States for the same jury sentence after an independent Court. Such a prosecution argument conduct. weighing of aggravating and mitigating was viewed as improperly diminishing circumstances. the "awesome responsibility" placed Other cases of interest during the upon jurors to choose between life or year were: Capital punishment laws death and was inconsistent with the need tor a reliable determination "that • Francis v. FrankUn (decided At yearend 1985, the death penalty death is an appropriate punishment in a April 29, 1985). The Court concluded was authorized by the statutes of 37 2 stales and by Federal sta tute (table 1). In contrast to 1984--when the Table 1. profile or capital punishment statutes and legal changes during 1985 death penalty was struck down in New jurisdictions YOl'k and Massachusetts, and Oregon authorizing capital enacted a new capital punishment law- punishment Revised or Automatic . . there were no successful challenges to at some time replaced by appeals the constitutionality of Sta te death during 1985 . legislature required Capital offenses , penalty laws or enactment of any new ,i legislation authorizing capital punish- Federal Aircraft piracy :' ment during 1985. In a series of 1985 Alabama Yes Murder A.rlzona Yes Yes First degree mUrder rulings, however, the California Arkansas .Yes Aggravated murder; treason Supreme Court reversed death sen­ California Yes First degree murdec with special circumstances tences for defendants convicted of Colorado Yes Yes First degree murdei' (Includes felony murder); "murder with special circumstancesH first degree kidnaping Connecticut Yes Yes Murder (e.g.; felony murders, multiple murders) Delaware Yes First degree murder with statutory aggravating concluding that juries must be properly circumstances instructed to determine that the de­ Florida First degree murder Georgia Yes Murder; treason; aircraft hijacking; fendant had an actual "intent to kill" kidnaping with bodily Injury; armed robbery before they can impose the death or rape In which victim dies sentence. Idaho Yes8 First degree murder, aggravated kidnaping (except where victim released unharmed) 11I1nols Yes Murder Statutor)' changes Indiana Yes Murder Kentllcky Yes Aggravated murder; kidnaping when victim Eleven sta tes altered their eXisting is killed death penalty statutes during 1985. Louisiana Yes First degree mUrder Maryland Yes· First degree murder Arizona, Arkansas, Montana, Texas, and Mississippi Yes Yes Capital mllrder, capital rape Virigina added new aggravating factors Missouri Yes First degree murder or capital offense categories to their Montana Yes Yes Deliberate homlcld~, aggravated kidnaping capital punishment laws. Arizona (resulting in death) Nebraska Yes First degree murder included adult sta tus of the offender Nevada Yes Yes First degree murder when the victim was less than 15 years New Hampshire Yes Contract murder or murder of a law enforcement omcer or kidnaping victim old as a circumstance that could aggra­ b vate homicide to first degree murder. New Jersey Yes Yes Kidnaping or purposeful murder or contract murder with aggravating cltcumstances Arkansas incorporated murder for pecu­ New Mexico Yesn First degree murder niary gain and murder committed in a North Carolina Yes First degree murder heinous or cruel manner into its stat­ Ohio Aggravated murder utes as aggravating factors. Texas Oklahoma Yes Murder Oregon Yes Aggravated murder included multiple murders as an aggra­ Pennsylvania Yes First degree murder vating factor. Virginia added murder South Carolina Yes Yes Murder with statutory aggravating clrcllmstances during an abduction of a child under the South Dakota Yes Murder, kidnaping (with gross permanent age of 12 as a capital crime. physical injury inflicted on Victim) Tennessee Yes First degree murder Texas Yes Yes Murder of public safety officer, fireman, Montana added a series of aggra­ or correctional employee; murder during vating circumstances for murder com­ specified felonies or escapes; contract mitted by prison inmates who /lad a murder; multiple murders Utah Yes First degree murder; aggravated assault by prior record of deliberate homicide or prisoner sentcnced for first degree felony of repeated felonies at least one of wherc serious Injury is caused which was a violent offense. The Vermont MUrder of police or corrections officer, aggravating circumstances are at­ kidnaping for ransom Virginia Yes Yes Capital murder tempted deliberate homicide, aggra­ Washington Yes Aggravated, premeditated first degree murder vated assault, or aggravated kidnaping. Wyoming Yes First degree murder

Three states-Colorado, Connecti­ Note: See Appendix for State-by-State detail New YorK, North Dakota, !thode Island, West on statutory revisions. Jurisdictions without Virginia, lind Wisconsin. cut, and South Carolina-amended their capital pUnishment statutes are: Alaska, 8Sentence review only. death penalty statutes to ensure severe District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, bAutomatic review lifter January 17, t986. restrictions on parole fOl' persons who Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, had their death sentences commuted to • life imprisonment. Colorado stipulated that for offenses committed after mid­ serve a life term without possibility of Lastly, Nevada limited the time for year 1985 prisoners whose death sen- parole. South Carolina specifically automatic State Supreme Court review • tences were com muted to life terms excluded from parole eligibility those of death sentences to 150 days and also could not be paroled for 40 years. persons commuted to life sentences for struck the requirement for a propor­ Connecticut provided that defendants murder. tionality review as a part of the sentenced to life imprisonment, instead evaluation by the State Supreme Court. of death, because of mitigating circum­ Only one State-New Jersey­ stances in capital murder cllses must modified its death penalty law to re­ strict the scope, by providing that no death sentence be Imposed unless the 1The only Federal crime for which capital punishment Is now authorized Is aircraft plrncy aggravating factors outweighed the (excluding crimes prosecuted under military mitigating circumstances "beyond any authority). reasonable dOllpt." 3 Methods ofexecution Table 2. Method or execution, by State, 1985 At yearend 1985, lethal injection Lethal injection Electrocution Lethal gas Hanging Firing squad (16 States) and electrocution (15 Arkansasa Alabama Arizona Delaware Idahos States) were the most common methods Idahos Arkansasa California Montanaa Utaha of execution. Eight States authorized Illinois Connecticut Colorado New Hampshire lethal gas; four States, hanging; and MisSissiPgia,b Florida Maryland Washington8 two States, a firing squad (table 2). Montana Georgia MisslsslpPla,b Nevada Indiana Missouri Eight States provided for more than one New Jersey Kentucky North CarolinaS method of execution-lethal injection New Mexico Louisiana Wyominga North Carolina8 Nebraska and an alternative method-generally at c the election of the condemned prisoner. Oklahoma Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania (In Mississippi lethal injection was Sou th Dakota Sou th Carolina introduced in 1985 for persons con­ Texas Tennessee victed after July It 1984.) Some States Utaha Vermont IVashington8 Virginia have stipulated an alternative to lethal Wyomlng8 injection in anticipation that it may be found unconstitutional. Each of the 8Authorizes two methods of execution. to be carried out with lethal gas. other four methods, previously chal­ bMississippi authorizes lethal injection cShould lethal Injection be found to be for those convicted after 7/1/84; executions unconstitutional, Oklahoma authorizes use lenged on Eighth Amendment grounds of those convicted prior to that date are of electrocution or firing squad. as cruel and unusual punishment, has been found to be constitutional. The method of execution for Federal of­ Table 3. Minimum age authorized Cor fenders is that of the State in which capital punishment, yearend 1985 the execution takes place. 10 years Indiana Automatic review Yermont 13 years Georgia Mississippi Of the 37 States with capital 14 yellrs Missouri punishment statutes at yearend 1985, North Carolina 32 provided for an automatic review of 15 years Arkansas all death sentences. Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana New Jersey, Ohio, and Vermont had no Virginia specific provisions for automatic 16 years Connecticut review (although New Jersey has had Montana such review since January 17, 1986). In Nevada most States automatic review is con­ 17 years New Hampshire ducted regardless of the defendant's 'rexas wishes. While most of the 32 States 18 years California authorize automatic review of both Colorado Illinois conviction and sentence, Idaho, Mary­ Nebraska land and New Mexico require review of New Jel'seya the sentence only. Typically, the New Mexico Ohio review is undertaken directly by the b State Supreme Court. If either the Oregon conviction or sentence is vacated, the Washington case may be remanded to the trial No minimum age Federal specified Alabama court for additional proceedings or for Arizona retrial. It is possible that as a result Delaware of retrial or resentencing the death Florida Idaho sentence may be reimposed. Some Kentucky statutes also permit the State Supreme Maryland Court to commute a death sentence to Oklahoma life imprisonment. Pennsylvania South carolt~ South Dakota Minimum age Tennessee Utah A total of 23 States specify a mini­ Wyoming mum age at which the death penalty aDuring 1985 New Jersey enacted legislation may be imposed (table 3). In some changing the minimum age for receiving the States the minimum age .is specified in death penalty from 14 to 18 years old, the capital punishment statute; in sfCective January 17, 1986. others it is, in effect, set forth in Adult status at trial required. the statutory provisions that determine the age at which a juvenile may be h'ansferred to criminal court for trial as an adult. The most frequently speci­ fied age is 18 years old (nine Sta tes). Fourteen States and the Federal system report no minimum age. 4 . risoners under sentence Table 4. Prisoners under sentence oC death, . f death at yearend 1985 by region and State at yearend 1984 and 1985 A total of 32 States reported 1,591 Changes during 1985 Prisoners Removed from Prisoners ersons under sentence of death on under Received death row under _ecember 31, 1985, an increase of 171 sentence under (excluding sentence r 12.2% over the count at the end of Region and Sta te 1984 sentence executions) Executed 1985 L984 (table 4). States with the largest a lumber of prisoners under sentence of United states 1,420 273 84 18 1,591 leath were Florida (226), Texas (206), Federalb Q 0 0 0 0 Jalifornia (170), and Georgia (107). State 1,420 273 84 18 1,591 Northeast 59 20 6 0 73 Although 37 States had statutes Connecticut 0 0 0 0 0 lUthorizing the death penalty (covering New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 0 '7% of the nation's adult population), 5 New Jersey 10 7 0 0 17 )f these reported no prisoners under Pennsylvania 49 13 6 0 56 entence of death at yearend (Connec­ Vermont 0 0 0 0 0 icut, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Midwest 174 54 6 1 221 lakota, and Vermont). Illinois 70 15 2 0 83 Indiana 26 10 1 1 34 Of the 1,591 persons under sentence Missouri 29 8 1 0 36 f death, more than three-fifths (63%) Nebrllska 13 0 1 0 12 Ohio 36 21 1 0 56 Jere in the South, 19% were in Western South Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 ;tates, 14% in the Midwest, and nearly % in the Northeast. Nearly all were South 900 167 50 16 1,001 lale (98.9%) and most were white Alabama 68 13 2 0 79 56.8%) (table 5). Blacks constituted Arkansas 23 6 1 0 28 Delaware 6 0 2 0 4 2.2% of those under sentence of death Florida 215 27 13 3 226 nd another 1% were American Indians Georgia 112 8 10 3 107 r Asian Americans. ,{'he States Kentucky 20 6 1 0 2S eported a total of 99 Hispanics under Louisiana 31 10 1 1 39 Maryland 19 0 2 0 17 entence of dea.th, 6.2% of the total. ill isslssippi 39 5 3 0 41 'he largest number of Hispanics were North Carolina 37 20 1 0 56 eld in States with rela.tively large Oklahoma 50 14 6 0 58 [ispanic populations: Texas (33), South Carolina 35 9 1 1 42 Tennessee 37 11 2 0 46 :alifornia (22), Florida (10), Illi- Texas 180 36 4 6 206 ois (9), and Arizona (7). Virginia 28 2 1 '2 27

The median age of those under sen­ West 287 32 22 1 296 0 56 ~nce of death was nearly 32 years. Arizona 56 4 4 California 167 16 13 0 1.70 ess than 1% were under the age of 20 Colorado 1 0 0 0 1 nd 2% were 55 or older. The youngest Idaho 14 1 1 0 14 ffender under sentence of death was Montana 4 1 0 0 5 6 years old and the oldest was 74 years Nevada 28 7 3 1 31 New Mexico 5 0 0 0 5 ld. About 1 in 9 of the inmates for Oregon 0 0 0 0 0 hom information on education was Utah 5 2 1 0 6 vailable had not gone beyond seventh Washington 4 1 0 a 5 rade, but about 1 in 11 had some Wyoming 3 0 0 0 3 :>llege education. The median level of Note: sta tes not listed and the District of in Oklahoma, lind 2 in Texas) and exclUde 9 jucation was 10.5 years. Approxi­ Columbia did not have the dea th penalty as of inmates relieved of the death sentence before lately a third of the condemned 12/31/85. Some of the figures shown for 12/31/84 (1 1n.1II1nois, 1 in Florida, 1 in Imates for whom marital status was yearend 1984 are revised from those shown Louisialla, 1 in Ol

5 Entries and removals of persons under sentence of death Table 5. Demographic profile of prl80ners under sentence of death, 1985 Yearend 1985 1985 admIssIons 1985 removals During 1985, 26 State prison Total number under systems reported receiving prisoners 1,591 273 102 under sentence of death. Texas sentence of death ~x reported the largest number (36), Male 98.9% 98.9% 97.1% followed by Florida (27), Ohio (21), Female 1.1 1.1 2.9 and North Carolina (20). Race White 56.8% 58.6% 61.8% Of the 273 received under sentence Black 42.3 40.7 36.3 a of death: Other 1.0 .7 2.0 • all were convicted of murder; Ethnlclty • 157 were white males, 111 were black HIspanIc 6.2% 6.2% 5.9% males, 2 were male American Indians; Non-HIspanic 93.8 93.8 94.1 Ageb • 3 were white females; Less than 20 years .8% 4.4% 0% • 17 were Hispanic. 20-24 13.3 26.4 9.8 25-29 26.9 25.3 30.4 Twenty-six states reported a total 30-34 23.6 19.8 23.5 35-39 16.3 9.9 13.7 of 80 persons whose sentence of death 40-54 17.0 12.1 20.6 was vacated or commuted during 55+ 2.0 2.2 2.0 1985. Florida and California reported MedIan 31.9 years 28.0 years 32.1 years the largest number, 13 each, followed Education by Georgia with 10. 7th grade or less 10.8% 10.8% 9.9% 8th 11.7 11.1 13.6 Of the 80 persons whose death sen­ 9th-11th 35.6 39.4 34.6 12th 32.4 30.3 33.3 tence was vacated or commuted during Any college 1985: 9.4 8.4 8.6 • 46 had their sentences vacated but MedIan 10.5 years 10.4 years 10.5 years convictions upheld; Marital status MarrIed 32.6% 28.0% 37.1% • 30 had both their sentences and DIvorced/separated 21.2 22.2 14.4 convictions vacated; Widowed 2.3 3.5 4.1 • 4 had their sentences commuted. Never marrIed 43.9 46.3 44.3 At yearend, 45 of the 80 were serving . Note: Percentage and medIan calculations are prIsoners admItted in 1985, and 5 prisoners life sentences, 17 were awaiting new based on those cases for whIch data were re- removed In 1985. trials, 11 were awaiting resentencing, ported. Education data were not reported for ~Conslsts of 11 AmerIcan Indians and 5 Asians. no further prosecution was sought for 6, 235 prisoners at yearend 1985, 22 prisoners The youngest person under sentence of dea th and 1 was in an undetermined status. admItted In 1985, and 21 prisoners removed In was a black inmate in Arkansas born In 1985. Data on marital status were not report- October 1969. The oldest was a whIte Inmate ed for 98 prIsoners at yearend 1985, 16 In Kentucky born In October 1911. In addition, four persons died while under sentence of death in 1985. Two of these were murdered by other in­ Table 6. Number ot women on death row by State, yearend 1972-85 mates; 1 died as a result of natUral causes; and 1 committed suicide. State 1972 1973 1974 19751976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 United Sta tes 4 3 3 8 7 6 5 7 9 11 14 13 17 17 From 1977, the year after the California 3 1 2 Supreme Court reinstated the death Georgia 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 3 2 2 penalty, through 1985, a total of 2,110 North Carolina 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 persons entered prison under a sentence Ohio 2 3 4 2 2 2 Oklahoma 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 ,f of death; 889 had their capital sentence Florida 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 vacated or commuted or died while Alabama 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 under sentence; and 50 were executed. Texas 1 2 2 2 1 2 Of those admitted, 58% were white, Kentucky 1 1 Maryland 1 2 1 2 1 41 % were black, and 1% were classified MIssissIppi 1 1 1 1 as other races. Of those who had their Nevada 1 1 2 2 sentences vacated or commuted or who New Jersey 1 1 died while under sentence, 57% were Arkansas 1 Idaho 1 white, 42% were black, and less than Indiana 1 1 % were of other races. Of the 50 executed, 66% were white and 34% were black.

6 Table 7. Criminal t.l.otory promo of prboners under IIElntence of death, by race, 19115 Table O. Number of persoll!l executed, by jurlsd!ctlon in Number under Percent at those rank order, 1936-85 sentence at death under sentence at death- All All Number executed racesb White Black racesb White Black state Since 1930 Since 1977 , , . Prior felony conviction history U.s. total 3,909 50 Yes 970 528 432 66.2% 62.2% 71.9% Georgia 372 6 No 496 321 169 33.8 37.8 28.1 New York 329 Not reported 125 54 71 Texas 307 10 ! California 292 Prior homicide conviction history North Carolina 265 2 Yes 116 48 67 9.0% 6.5% 12.6% Florida 183 13 No 1,170 693 464 91.0 93.5 67.4 Ohio 172 Not reported 305 162 141 South Carolina 163 1 MIssissippi 155 1 l.egal status at time Pennsylvania 152 or capital otrP.lIOO Louisiana 140 7 7.4% 5.2.% Charges pending 85 55 28 6.6% Alabama 136 1 Probation 70 48 21 5.4 6.5 3.9 Arkansas 118 25.6 Parole 260 123 137 20.1 16.5 Kentucky 103 Prison escapee 36 22 14 2.8 3.0 2.6 Virginia 96 4 Prison inmate 44 24 20 3.4 3.2 3.7 93 C Tennessee Other sta tus 21 11 9 1.6 1.5 1.7 illinois 90 None 776 461 307 60.1 62.0 57.3 New Jersey 74 Not reported 299 159 136 Maryland 68 Missouri 62 Median time elapsed since Oklahoma 60 imposition of death sentence 36 mos. 35 mos. 38 mos. Washington 47 Colorado 47 apercents are based on those offenders for clncludes six persons on manda tory release, Indiana 43 2 ~hom data were reported. two on ball, three on furlough from prison, one West Virginia 40 ncludes whites, blacks, and persons classified for whom charges were pending from the U.S. District of Columbia 40 as members of other races. Army, one In a local jail, and eight on work Arizona 38 release/work furlough from prison. Federal system 33 Nevada 31 2 Criminal history of inmates under government, 3,909 executions have Massachusetts 27 Connecticut 21 sentence of death in 1985 been con~ucted under civil authority Oregon 19 (table 8). Since the death penalty was Iowa 18 Among those under sentence of reinstated by the Supreme Court in Kansas 15 death at yearend 1985 for whom crimi­ 1976, the States have executed 50 Utah 14 1 Delaware 12 nal history information was available, persons: New Mexico 8 66% had a history of felony convictions 1977: 1 1983: 5 Wyoming 7 6 (table 7). Among those for whom 1979: 2 1984: 21 Montana information on homicide was available, Vermont 4 1981: 1 1985: 18 Nebraska 4 9% had a previous conviction for that 1982: 2 Idaho 3 crime. South Dakota 1 A total of 12 States have carried New Hampshire 1 out executions since 1977. During the Wisconsin 0 Among those for whom legal status Rhode Island 0 at the time of the capital offense was period, 32 white males, 17 black males, North Dakota 0 reported, about 40% had been in an and 1 white female have been executed Minnesota 0 active status. Half of these were on with the largest number of executions Michigan 0 occurring in Florida (13), Texas (10), Maine 0 parole, while the rest had charges Hawaii 0 pending (7%), were on probation (5%), and Louisiana (7). During 1985, 11 Alaska 0 or were prison inmates (3%) or escapees white males and 7 black males were executed by eight States. (3%). Excluding those with pending Since 1977, a total of 2,530 offend­ charges, a total of one in three were 2'An additional 160 executions have been carried ers have been under a death sentence already under sentence for another out under military authority since 1930. for val'ying periods of time (table 9). crime when the murder for which they were condemned occur~d; in a number Table 9. Percentage of those under sentence of death who were of Sta tes such sta tus is considered an executed or received other dispositions, by race, 1917-85 aggravating factor in sentencing for murder. Prisoners wh

There were 50 executions and 889 Table 10. Elapsed time between imposition oC death sentence removals for other reasons, including and execUtiOll, by race, 1977-aS death while awaiting execution. Most of the removals occurred because the Average elapsed time from Year of Number executed sentence to execution for: individual's particular sentence or execution All races Whites Blacks All races Whites Blacks conviction was overturned. A slightly higher percentage of whites than blacks Total 50 33 17 72 months 68 months 79 months were executed during this period; 1977-83 11 9 2 58 59 58 removal rates for the two races were 1984 21 13 8 79 76 84 virtually identical. 1985 18 11 7 71 65 80 Note: Three cases were resentenced to death tencing dates. The range for elapsed time for For those executed since 1977, the after appeal. For these executions, average the 50 executions was 3 months to 133 months. average time between sentence imposi­ time was calculated from the original sen- tion and execution was 6 years (table 10). For the 11 prisoners executed State notes of persistent felonies including violent during 1977-83 an average of nearly 5 offenses. Effective 10/1/85. years elapsed between the time their Arizona-Amendments to Ariz. Rev. Nevada-Amendments to Chapter sentence was imposed and their execu­ Statutes, Section 13-703-(F9), include 177, Nev. Rev. Statutes, limit the time tion. Those executed in 1984 had spent as aggravating factors cases when the for appellate review of death sentences more than 61/2 years under sentence of defendant was an adult at the time the to 150 days. Section 177.055 eliminates death. Prisoners executed in 1985 had offense was committed or was tried as the requirement that the State Supreme averaged just under 6 years awaiting an adult and the victim was under 15 Court's automatic review of a death execution, a year more than the aver­ years of age. Effective 5/16/85. sentence include an evaluation of its age for 1977-83, but a half-year less Arkansas-Revisions to Ark. Rev. proportionality to other similar cases, than the average for 1984. Statutes, Article V, Chapter 15, Section though a review for excessiveness of 41-1501,8, include murder for pecuniary the penalty is retained. Effective Black prisoners executed in 1985 gain a.nd murder committed in a heinous 7/1/85. had spent an average of 6 years and 8 and cruel manner as aggrava ting fac­ New Jersey-Amendments to New months awaiting execution; whites, 5 tors. Effective 4/4/85. Jersey Statutes 2C:1l-3 include pro­ years and 5 months. Colorado-Revisions to Sectionb 16- visions that a mandatory death penalty 11-103,18-1-105, Colo. Rev. Statutes, may not be imposed unless the aggra­ Methodological note 1985 Suppl. Vol. provide for juries to be vating factors outweigh the mitigating instructed that for offenses committed factors beyond any reasonable doubt. The statistics reported in this before midyear 1985, life imprisonment Effective 7/10/85. bulletin may differ from data collected means no parole for 20 years, and for South Carolina-Amendment to S.C. by other organizations for any of the offenses on or after that date, no Statutes at Large, Sec. 16-3-20, specif­ following reasons: (1) Inmates are parole for 40 years. Effective 7/1/85. ically provides that persons whose originally added to the National Pris­ Connecticut-Amendments to Conn. sentences for murder were commuted oner Statistics death-row counts not at General Statutes 53a-54b by Public to life sentences may not be eligible for the time the court hands down the Acts 85-366 stipulate trial court cri­ parole. Effective 5/21/85. sentence, but at the time they are teria for determining any mitigating Texas-Amendment to Texas Penal admitted to a State or Federal correc­ circumstances before sentencing in Code Section 19.03(a) adds multiple tional facility. (2) Subsequently, capital murder cases and also provide murders to the overall category of admissions to death row or releases as a that if mitigating factors exist, the capital murder. Effective 9/1/85. result of a court order are attributed to defendant must be sentenced to life Virginia-Amendments to Virginia the year in which the sentence or court imprisonment without parole. Effec­ Code, Section 18.2-31(h) add murder of order occurred. Prior year counts lIre, tive 10/1/85. a child under the age of 12 years old in therefore, adjusted to reflect the Mississippi-Capital murder includes the commission of an abduction to the actual dates of court decisions (see murder of a peace officer, murder by a categories of capital murder. Effective Note, table 4). (3) NPS death-row life-sentence inmate, murder perpetra­ 7/1/85. counts are always for the last day of ted by bomb or explosive, contract the calender year and thus will differ murder, murder committed during an­ from counts for more recent periods. other felony, and murder of an elected official. Capital rape is forcible rape Bureau of Justice Statistics U.s. Supreme Court decisions cited of a child under 14 years by a person 18 Bulletins are prepared princi- years or older. Revision to Miss. Penal pally by the staff of BJS. This Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U. S. 412 Code 99-19-51 Suppl. 1985 substitutes bulletin was written by Lawrence A. (1985); 105 s. Ct. 844 (1985) lethal injection for lethal gas as the Greenfeld, corrections unit chief. Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U. S. 68 (1985), method of execution for those convic­ Carol B. Kalish, chief of data 105 S. Ct. 1087 (1985) ted after July 1, 1984, retaining lethal analysis, edits the bulletins. Caldwell v. Mississippi, 105 S. Ct. gas as the method for those convicted Marilyn Marbrook, publications unit 2633 (1985) before that date. chief, administered production, Heath v. Alabama, 106 S. Ct. 433 (1985) Montana-Amendments to Section assisted by Millie Baldea and Betty Francis v. Franklin, 105 S. Ct. 1965 46-18-303, Mont. Code Ann., 1985, Sherman. Data were tabUlated by (1985) include as aggravating circumstances Arlene Rasmussen and other staff of Heckler v. Chaney 105 S. Ct. 1649 attempted deliberate homicide, aggra­ the U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1985) vated assauli, or aggravated kidnaping Baldwin v. Alabama 105 S. Ct. 2048 committed by State prison inmates with November 1986, NCJ-102742 (1985) prior records of deliberate homicide or

8 Bureau of Justice Statistics Announces the Justice Statistics Clearinghouse

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), in conjunction with the Na­ tional Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJ RS), announces the establishment of the Justice Statis­ tics Clearinghouse. The Clearim!­ house toll-free number is: • Suggesting referrals to other sources for criminal justice statis­ 800-732-3277 tics. If the Clearinghouse doesn't have the answer, an in formation Persons from Marylund and the special ist will refer you to agencies Washington, D.C., metropolitan or individuals who do. area should call 301-251-5500. • Conducting custom literature Services offered by the Clearing­ searches of the NCJRS document house include: data base. We can search the NCJRS data base and provide topi­ e Responding to statistical re­ cal bibliographic citations and quests. How many rapes are re­ abstracts to answer speci fic re­ ported to the police'? How many quests. burglaries occurred in the past year? Call the Clearinghouse, toll free. • Collecting statistical reports. You have 24-hour access to the The Clearinghouse collects statisti­ Justice Statistics Clearinghouse. • Providing information about cal reports from numerous sources. From8:30a.m. t08:00p.m. EST, BJS services. Interested in receiv­ Submit statistical documents to weekdays, an information specialist ing BJS documents and products'? share with criminal justice col­ is available. After work hours, you Register with the BJS mailing list leagues to: NCJRS, Attention BJS may record your orders or leave a by calling the Clearingpouse, toll Acquisition, Box 6000, Rockville, message for an information special­ free. MD 20850. ist to return your call. Announcing the new

Statistical tables a~d tgraphS Fact-Finding with explanatory ex__ _ Specialized directories or _~_"------"ations Crime trend information over a period of time Service ~~

Need a specialized Examples of reports: Call NCJRS with your request. An • statistical tables and graphs with information specialist will estimate report-one tailor­ explanatory text; the cost. We can begin work as soon as we have your approval. made just for you? • State-by-State program or legis­ lative information presented in Call toll free for more information: an easy-to-read format; National Criminal Justice Refer­ The National Criminal Justice Ref­ • specialized directories or listings ence Service sponsored by the Na­ erence Service's new Fact-Finding of justice agencies, organiza­ tional Insti tute of Justice Service is your solution. Get tions, or instructions; answers to your hard-to-find crimi­ 800-851-3420 naljustice questions in a report • crime trend information over a tailored just for you. specified period of time. Justice Statistics Clearinghouse sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics We'll gather the facts and figures Prices: using BJS resources, NCJRS re­ Your cost for the Fact-Finding 800-732-3277 sources, professional associations, Service covers actual expenses news articles, juvenile justice agen­ only. Prices are determined by the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse cies, or whatever it takes to find the time needed to respond to your re­ sponsored by the Office of Juvenile answers. We then send you a full quest. A request that requires up to Justice and Delinquency Prevention report that matches your specific 5 hours could cost between $75 and needs. $250. 800-638-8736 Bureau of Justice Statistics reports Corrections Privacy and security (revised October 1986) BJS bUlletins and special reports: Computer crime: Call toll-free 800-732-3277 (local State and Federal prisoners, 1925-85, BJS speCial reports: 251-5500) to order BJS reports, to be added NCJ·l02494. 10/86 Electronic fund transfer frraud, NCJ-96866,3/85 to one of the BJS mailing lists, or to speak Prlsonera In 1985, NCJ·l01384, 6/86 . Electronic fund transfer and crime, to a reference specialist in statistics at the Prison admission and releases, 1983, NCJ·92650, 2/84 Justice Statistics Clearinghouse, Natlonal NCJ'loo582,3/86 l!Iectronic fund transfer fraud, NCJ·l 00481, Capital punishment 1984, NCJ·98399, 8/85 • Criminal Justice Reference Service, 4/86 Examining recidiVism, NCJ·96501, 2/85 Computer security techniques, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20850. Single Returning to prison, NCJ.95700, 11/84 caples of reports are free; use NCJ number NCJ'84049,9/82 Time served In prison, NCJ·93924, 6/84 ElectronIc fund transfer systems and crime, to order. Postage and handling are charged Historical corrections statistics In the U,S., 1850' NCJ·83736, 9/82 for bulk orders of single reports. For single 1984, NCJ'102529, 10/86 Expert witness manual, NCJ-77927, 9/81 copies of multiple titles, up to 10 titles are Prisoners In State and Federal Institutions on Criminal JUstice resource manual, NCJ·61550. free; 11-40 titles $1 OJ more than 40, $20; Dec. 31, 1983, NCJ'99861, 6/86 12{79 libraries call for special rates. Capital punishment 1984 (final), NCJ·99562, 5/86 Privacy and security of criminal history Public-use tapes of BJS data sets and Capital punishment 198a (final), NCJ'99561, 4/86 Information: other criminal Justice data are available 1979 survey of Inmates of State correctional facilities Compendium 1)f State le9lslatlon, 1984 from the Criminal Justice Archive and and 1979 census of State correctional facilities: overview, NCJ'98077, 9/85 Information Network, P.O. BoX 1248, Ann BJS special reports: Criminal Justice Information policy: Arbor, MI48106 (313-763-5010). The prevalence of Imprisonment, NCJ·93657, Crime control andcrlmlnal records (BJS special 7/85 report), NCJ·99176, 10/85 Natlonal Crime Survey Career pattnrna In crime, NCJ'88672, 6/83 State criminal records repositories (BJS Criminal vl~tlmlzatlon In the U.S.: BJS bulletins: technical report), NCJ·99017, 10/85 1964 (final report), NCJ·j 00435, 5/86 Prisoners and drugs, NCJ·87575, 3/83 Data quality of criminal history records, NCJ· 1983 (final reporl), NCJ·96459, 10/85 Prisoners and alcohol, NCJ·86223, 1/83 98079,10/85 1982 (final report), NCJ·92820, '11/84 Prisons and prisoners, NCJ.80697, 2/82 Intelligence and Investigative records, 1973·82 trends, NCJ·90541, 9/83 Vetarans In prison, NCJ·79232, 11/81 NCJ·95787,4/85 1960 (final report), NCJ·84015, 4/83 Victim/witness legislation: An overview, 1979 (final report). NCJ·76710, 12/81 Census of /alls and survey of /al/ Inmates: NCJ·94365, 12/84 Jail Inmates, 1984, NCJ'1 01 094, 5/86 Information polley and crime control strategies BJS specIal rsports: Jatllnmates,1983 (BJS bulletin), NCJ·99175, (SEARCHlBJS conference), NCJ'93926, Preventing domestic violence against women, 11/85 10/84 NCJ'102037,8/86 The 1983 Jail census (BJS bulletin), NCJ.95536, Research access to criminal Justice data, Crime prevention measures, NCJ'100438,3/86 11/84 NCJ'84154,2/83 The use of weapons In committing crimes, Census of Jails, 1918: Data for Individual Jails, Privacy and Juvenile Justice records, NCJ·99643, 1/86 vols. I-IV, Northeast, Norlh Central, South, Wesl. NCJ·84152, 1/83 Reporting crimes to the police, NCJ·99432, NCJ-72279'72282, 12/81 Survey 01 State laws (BJS bulletin), 12/85 Profile of jail Inmates,. 1978, NCJ'65412, 2/81 NCJ·80836, 6/82 Locating city, suburban, and rural crime, NCJ· Privacy and the private employer, 99535, 12/85 Children in custody: NCJ·79651, 11/81 The risk of violent crime, NCJ'S7119, 5/85 Public Juvenile facilities, 1985 (bulletin), The economic cost of crime to victims, NCJ· NCJ·l02457,10/86 General 93450,4/84 1982·83 census of Juvenile detention and Family violence, NCJ·93449, 4/84 BJS bulletIns: correctional facilities, NCJ'101686, 9/86 Police employment and expenditure, BJS bulletins: NCJ'100117,2/86 Households touched by crime, 1985, Expenditure and employment Tracking offenders: The child victim, NCJ· NOJ·l01685.6/86 BJS Bulletins: 95785, 12/84 Crlmlnalvlctimlzatlon, 1984, NCJ·98904, 10/85 Justice expenditure and employment: The severity of crime, NCJ.92326, 1/64 The ,~rlme of rape, NOJ·96777,,3/85 1983, NCJ·l01776, 7/86 The American response to crime: An overview Household burglary, NCJ·96021, 1/85 1982, NCJ'98327, 6/85 of criminal justice systems, NCJ·91936, 12/83 Criminal Victimization, 1983, NCJ'93869, 6/84 Justice expenditure and employment In the U,S.: Tracking offenders, NCJ'91572, 11/83 Violent crime by ~trangers, NCJ·80829, 4/82 Victim and witness assistance: New State Crime and the elderly, NCJ·79614, 1/82 1980 and 1981 extracts, NCJ'96007, 6/85 1971-79, NCJ·92596, 11/84 laws and the system's response, NCJ·87934, ( Measuring crime, NCJ.75710, 2/81 5/83 Response to screening questions In the National Courts 1986 directory of automated criminal Justice Crime Survey (BJS technical reporl), NCJ· BJS bulletfns: Information systems, NCJ'102280, 10/86 97624,7/85 Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, 1985, Victimization and fear of crime: World The growth of appeals: 1973·83 trends, NOJ·96381, 2/85 NCJ'loo899,10/86 ,perspectives, NCJ·93872, 1/85 Crime and justice facts, 1985, NCJ·l00757, 5/86 The National Crime Survey: Working papers, Case filings In State courts 1983, NCJ.95111, 10/84 Bureau of Justice Statistics annual report, fiscal vol. I: Current and historical perspectives, 1985, NCJ·loo182, 4/86 NCJ·75374,8/82 BJS specIal reporls: Felony case-processln9 time, NCJ'l 01985, 8/86 Nallonal survey of crime severity, NCJ·96017, "r vol. II: Methologlcal stUdies, NCJ·90307, 12/84 10/85 "i) Issues In the measurement of crime, Felony sentencing In 18 local JUrisdictions, NCJ'97681, 6/85 Criminal victimization of District of Columbia . NPJ.7:4682., 10/8 \ residents and Capitol Hili employees, 1982'83, The c~~t of negligence: Losses from prevenlable The prevatence of guilty pleas, NCJ·96018, 12/84 NCJ·97982;Summary, NCJ-98567; 9/85 ' househ'lld burglaries, NCJ'53527, 12/79 Tha DC crime victimization study Implementation, Rape victimization In 26 American cities, Sentencing practices In 13 States, NCJ'95399, 10/84 NCJ'98595, 9/85, $7,60 domestic/$9.20Canadl· NCJ·55078, 8/79 an/$12.80 foreign Criminal victimization In urban schools, Criminal defense systems: A national survey, NCJ '94630, 8/84 The DC household victimization survey data base: NCJ·56396, 8/79 ' DOCUmentation, NCJ·98598, $6.40/$8.40/$11 An Introduction to the National Crime Survey, Habeas corpus, NCJ·92948, $/84 State court caseload statistics, 1977 and User manual, NCJ·98597, $8.20/$9.80/$12.80 ,1. " NCJ.43732.4/78 BJS telephone contacts '85, NCJ·98292, 8/85 \ Local victim surveys: A revieW of the Issues, 1981, NCJ'87587, 2/83 . ,. NCJ'39973, 8/77 . National criminal defense systems study,NCJ' How to gain access to BJS data (brochure), 8C·000022, 9/84 94702, 10/86 Proceedings the 2nd Workshop law and Parole and probation 01 on The prosecution of felony arrests: Justice statistics, 1984, NCJ·9331O, 8/84 ."s./S bUlle/Ins: 1981, NCJ'101380, 9/86 Report to the nallon on crime and Justice: . Pr2bation and parole 1984, NCJ'100181, 1980, NCJ'97684, 10/85 Tile data, NCJ·87088, 10/83 •.1 2/86 1919, NCJ'86482, 5/84 Dictionary of criminal Justice data terminology: '\: Setting prison termB, NC,J-76218, 8/83 State court model statistical dictionary, 2nd ed., NCJ'76939, 2/82 Supplement, NCJ'98326, 9/85 ,I: ~ f:!arole In the lJ, S" 1980 ,and 1981, NCJ·87387, Technical standards for machine-readable data ,.1 ~I' '3/B6 1 st edition, NCJ·62320, 9/80 supplied to BJS, NCJ'75318, 6/81 "'~! \ dharacterlsticB of Pllrsons entering parole State court OJ .lanl~atlon 1980, NCJ'76711, 7/82 A cross-city contparlson of felony case .\ during 1978 and 'J 9'79, NCJ·87243, 5/83 ",' Charnct,srlstlcs of the parole population, 1978, processing, NCJ·55171, 7/79 NCJ·66479, 4/81 Parole In the U,S., 1979, NCJ'69562; 3/61 Federal offenses and offenders BJS special reporls: Pretrial release and misconduct, NCJ.96132, 1/85 8JS bUlletins: . Bank robbery, NCJ'94463, 6/84 See order form Federal drug law Violators, NCJ'92692, 2/84 Federal Justice statistics, NCJ'80814, 3/82 on last page '~U, ~ ,,':~PVEIl~~ENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1986-181-478 r 40018 "c\t ';,' . To be added to any BJS mailing list, copy or cut out this page, fill it in anti mail it to: National Criminal Justice Reference Service User Services Dept. 2 Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20850

o If the name and address on the mailing label attached are correct, check here and don't fill them in again. If your address does not show your organizational affiliation (or criminal justice interest) please add it below. If your Ilame and address are different from the label, please fill them in: Name: Title: Organization: Street or box: City, State, Zip: Telephone: Interest in criminal justice:

Please add me to ~.he following list(s): o Justice lexpenditure and employment reports Courts reports Annual spending and staffing by Federal, o State court caseload surveys, model annual State, and local governments and by function State reports, State court organization surveys (police, courts, corrections, etc.) o Corrections reports o Computer crime reports Results of sample surveys and censuses of jails, Electronic fund transfer system crimes prisons, parole, probation, and other data o Privacy and security of criminal history o National Crime Survey reports information and information policy The only regUlar national survey of crime New legislation; maintaining and releasing victims intelligence and investigative records o SoW'cebook of Criminal Justice Statistics o Federal statistics Annual data from 153 sources in an easy-to­ Data describing Federal case processing, use, comprehensive format (400+ tables, from investigation through prosecution, soul'ces, index) adjudication, and corrections o Send me a registration form for NIJ Reports o BJS Bulletins and Special Reports (issued 6 times a year), which abstracts both Timely reports of the most current justice private and government documents published in data criminal justice. You will be asked each year if you wish to stay on the mailing list. If you do not reply, we are required by law to remove your name.

U.S. Department of Justice o fricia 1 Business Bureau of Justice Statistics Penalty for Private Use S300 BULK RATE POSTAGE & FEES PAID oo1/B1S Pennit No. G-91

Washington, D.C. 20531

"Builetiull