Why aren't similarly situated murderers treated alike? A comparative history of how the discourse of Michigan and Indiana's legal system and media have impacted the states' capital punishment legislation.

In the US, the state which has jurisdiction over a homicide can have significant impact on the criminal sanction an offender will receive. For example, a murderer who offended in Indiana can receive a death sentence. If the same crime were committed in Michigan, the harshest sentence the murderer would receive is life imprisonment. Indiana and Michigan, bordering states, have had opposing stances on capital punishment for over 150 years. Michigan was the first state to abolish capital punishment in 1846, and Indiana has used capital punishment since its founding in 1816. Historical institutional theory guides this study. It is posited that the media and the legal systems in these states have established differing discourse boundaries which constrain the state lawmaker's debates regarding the death penalty, and therefore, constrain the laws as originally enacted. The methodology of this study is a parallel comparative history of Indiana and Michigan. The primary sources of evidence include: Michigan and Indiana legal codes, state historical documents, legislative histories from the states, Indiana State Supreme Court case law, and newspaper archives. Discourse from these sources was analyzed at pivotal points in the history of the states when change to capital punishment laws might have been expected. Data analysis indicates that each state has established different discourse boundaries that hinder alterations in the states' stances on capital punishment. The primary finding is that Michigan gives more weight to arguments of a utilitarian nature and Indiana is more willing to accept arguments that capital punishment is appropriate retribution for some types of homicide. The differences in the states' discourse boundaries have constrained the debates of lawmakers and the choices they make regarding capital punishment; thus, continuing to constrain the states' original stance on the death penalty.Ph.D.Communication and the ArtsCriminologyLawMass communicationSocial SciencesSocial workUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/125032/2/3186586.pd