Jurors reframe capital sentencing as rules answering to avoid moral guilt

Evidence

Here is a juror’s expression of relief that the sentencing rule decided the outcome: “We are not sentencing him to death—we are just answering this question. We talked about it. We are just answering these questions—to get a clear mind so as not to feel guilty I sentenced him to die. That’s how the law has it—just answer these questions” (Haney et al., 1994). — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2003

Categorization

• SEED: Seed for an essay on how procedural paperwork functions as a moral dodge in institutions beyond courts — jury instructions, TPS reports, compliance checklists.
• XREF: Connects to the earlier Milgrom law-merchant material on how formalized procedures substitute for genuine discretion and accountability.
• DEEPTHINKING: The juror’s own words lay bare a profound mechanism: moral responsibility displaced onto procedural compliance, articulated with uncanny self-awareness even as she admits to sentencing a man to death.