Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-s82fj Total loading time: 0.344 Render date: 2022-10-01T11:56:48.916Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Just Evidence: The Limits of Science in the Legal Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Extract

“Relying on Science, Romney Files Death Penalty Bill.” With that headline, a press release on April 28, 2005 announced that Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was seeking to reintroduce by legislation the death penalty that the state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled unconstitutional in 1984. The remainder of the text left little doubt that science was a major basis for the governor's action. The press release quoted Romney as saying that the bill provided a “gold standard for the death penalty in the modern scientific age.” Positing a symmetry that will be questioned below, Romney also declared, “Just as science can free the innocent, it can also identify the guilty.” The bill itself deferred to science by calling for corroborating scientific evidence, multiple layers of review, and a novel “no doubt” standard of proof. By raising the required standard of evidence and by restricting the class of capital crimes, the proposed law hoped to correct the defects of other death penalty statutes.

Type
Symposium
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Department, Press Release, April 28, 2005.Google Scholar
Commonwealth v. Colon-Cruz, 393 Mass. 150 (1984) (on the grounds that the capital punishment law enacted by the state legislature encouraged defendants to plead guilty rather than seek a jury trial, thus forgoing their right against self-incrimination).Google Scholar
LeBlanc, S., “Romney Prepares to File ‘Scientific’ Death Penalty Bill,” Boston Globe, December 28, 2004, at <http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/12/28/romney_prepares_to_file_scientific_death_penalty_bill/> (last visited March 20, 2006).+(last+visited+March+20,+2006).>Google Scholar
Merton, R. K., “The Normative Structure of Science,” in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973): 267278.Google Scholar
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar
General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997).Google Scholar
Bacon, F., “Of Truth,” in Vickers, B., ed., The Essays or Counsels Civil and Moral (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999): 35.Google Scholar
For firsthand accounts of this seminal discovery of twentieth century biological sciences, see Watson, J. D., The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA (New York: Signet, 1968); Crick, F., What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery (New York: Basic Books, 1988).Google Scholar
Golan, T., Laws of Men and Laws of Nature: The History of Scientific Expert Testimony in England and America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004).Google Scholar
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).Google Scholar
Dumit, J., Picturing Personhood: Brain Scans and Biomedical Identity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press): at 121–122.Google Scholar
Nelkin, D. and Tancredi, L., Dangerous Diagnostics: The Social Power of Biological Information (New York: Basic Books, 1989): at 10.Google Scholar
Quoted in Dumit, Picturing Personhood, supra note 11, at 123.Google Scholar
Cole, S., Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
Goodwin, C., “Professional Vision,” American Anthropologist 96, no. 3 (1994): 606633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, S., “Expert Games in Silicone Gel Breast Implant Litigation,” in Freeman, M. and Reece, H., eds., Science in Court (London: Dartmouth, 1998): 83107.Google Scholar
For an overview of the role of this technology in criminal identification, see Lazer, D., ed., DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004). Early legal controversies about the technique's adoption are reviewed in Jasanoff, S., Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995); Golan, T., Laws of Men and Laws of Nature: The History of Scientific Expert Testimony in England and America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For the history and accomplishments of the Innocence Project, see their website, at <http://www.innocenceproject.org/> (last visited March 9, 2006).+(last+visited+March+9,+2006).>Google Scholar
Quoted at The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life website, Event Transcript: Governor George Ryan: Address on the Death Penalty, at <http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=28> (last visited March 9, 2006).+(last+visited+March+9,+2006).>Google Scholar
Quoted from an anonymous referee report on an earlier draft of this article.Google Scholar
Hoffman, J. L. Bieber, F. R. et al., “Report of the Governor's Council on Capital Punishment,” Indiana Law Journal 80, no. 1 (2005): 127. Also available online at <http://www.mass.gov/Agov2/docs/5-3-04%20MassDPReportFinal.pdf> (last visited March 9, 2006).Google Scholar
Id., at 4.Google Scholar
Id., at 5.Google Scholar
Lewis, R., “Romney Files Death Penalty Bill,” Boston Globe, April 29, 2005, at A1.Google Scholar
Associated Press, “House Defeats Romney Death Penalty Bill,” November 15, 2005, posted at <http://www.kucinich.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=20076#20076> (last visited March 9, 2006).+(last+visited+March+9,+2006).>Google Scholar
Glod, M. and Shear, M. D., “DNA Tests Confirm Guilt of Executed Man,” Washington Post, January 13, 2006, at A1.Google Scholar
See Jasanoff, S., The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990): at 250 (suggesting that the degree of certainty sought from science should be proportional to the ends to be achieved).Google Scholar
Gibbons, M. Limoges, C. Nowotny, H. Schwartzman, S. Scott, P., and Trow, M., The New Production of Knowledge (London: Sage Publications, 1994).Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S., “What Judges Should Know about the Sociology of Science,” Jurimetrics 32, no. 3 (1992): 345359. On regulatory science more specifically, see Jasanoff, , The Fifth Branch, supra note 11, at 76–83.Google Scholar
In the silicone gel breast implant litigation, where hundred of thousands of claims were at stake, multiple epidemiological studies conducted after the lawsuits began appeared to disconfirm plaintiffs' initial complaints of immune system disorders caused by leaked silicone. Although such concentrated research attention is unusual in litigation science, the case has been read by some as confirming the law's inability to distinguish between good and bad science. Angell, M., Science on Trial: The Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in the Breast Implant Case (New York: Norton, 1996).Google Scholar
See, for example, Dean, C., “Where Science and Public Policy Intersect, Researchers Offer a Short Lesson on Basics,” New York Times, January 31, 2006, at 1, (quoting Kennedy, Donald, editor of Science, supporting this view of replication).Google Scholar
The football star and media figure Simpson, O. J. was tried and acquitted in 1995 for the double murder of his wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ronald Goldman. Subsequently, in 1997, Simpson was tried and held responsible in a civil trial for having wrongfully caused their deaths. Details of the scientific evidence in the criminal trial may be found in the Simpson, O. J. Murder Trial and DNA Typing Archive, 1988–1996, Collection No. 53-12-3037, Cornell University Library, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
Council Report, supra note 21, at 5.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S., Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995): at 5052, 206–210.Google Scholar
Olsson, K., “Death Wish,” Boston Globe Magazine, January 1, 2006, at 18.Google Scholar
For illustrations of this discrepancy in DNA identification cases, Halfon, S., “Collecting, Testing and Convincing: Forensic DNA Experts in the Courts,” Social Studies of Science 28, nos. 5–6 (1998): 801828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, for example, Harvey v. Horan, 278 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. 2002), petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc denied, 285 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. 2002) (denying prisoner's claim for post-conviction DNA testing on the ground that legal finality cannot be sacrificed to changes in technology).Google Scholar
Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massachusetts Citizens Against the Death Penalty, “Governor Romney's Imperfect ‘Perfect’ Death Penalty Bill,” at <http://www.mcadp.org/Imperfect.htm> (last visited March 9, 2006).+(last+visited+March+9,+2006).>Google Scholar
Vaughan, D., The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).Google Scholar
Wynne, B., “Unruly Technology,” Social Studies of Science 18, no. 1 (1988): 147167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, S., ed., Learning from Disaster: Risk Management after Bhopal (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Columbia Accident Investigation Board, Report, Volume 1, Washington, DC: CAIB, August 2003, at 130.Google Scholar
Broad, W. and Wade, N., Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985): at 64.Google Scholar
Merton, , “Normative Structure,” supra note 4.Google Scholar
Wade, N., “Korean Scientist Said to Admit Fabrication in a Cloning Study,” New York Times, December 16, 2005, at A1.Google Scholar
“Trooper Goes on Trial on Charge of Faking Fingerprint Evidence,” New York Times, March 28, 1994, at B5.Google Scholar
“Police Faking Fingerprints to Solve Cases,” ABC World News Tonight, February 15, 1994, Transcript # 4032–5, at <http://www.law-forensic.com/cfr_fab_fp_3.htm> (last visited March 9, 2006).+(last+visited+March+9,+2006).>Google Scholar
Nordheimer, J., “Trooper's Fall Shakes Both Police and Public,” New York Times, November 15, 1992, at 1, 1.Google Scholar
American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, DNA Fingerprinting and Civil Liberties, Report of Workshop 2, Cambridge, MA, September 17–18, 2004, at <http://www.aslme.org/dna_04/work2/report.php> (last visited March 9, 2006).+(last+visited+March+9,+2006).>Google Scholar
Cole, S., “Is Fingerprint Identification Valid? Rhetorics of Reliability in Fingerprint Proponents' Discourse,” Law and Policy 28, no. 1 (2006): 109135, at 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, S., Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005): at 52–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angier, N., “Variant Gene Tied to a Love of New Thrills,” New York Times, January 2, 1996, at A1.Google Scholar
Morrell, V., “Evidence Found for a Possible ‘Aggression’ Gene,” Science 260 (1993): 17221723. See also Stevenson, R. W., “Researchers see Gene Link to Violence but Are Wary,” New York Times, February 9, 1995, at 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koshland, D., “Sequences and Consequences of the Human Genome,” Science 246, no. 4927 (1989): at 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewontin, R. C., Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA (New York: Harper Collins, 1993): 1937.Google Scholar
See, for instance, Duster, T., Backdoor to Eugenics (New York: Routledge, 1990): 5356.Google Scholar
Barinaga, M., “Is Homosexuality Biological?” Science 253 (1991): 956957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pool, R., “Evidence for Homosexuality Gene,” Science 261 (1993): 291292; see also Hamer, D. H. Hu, S. Magnuson, V. L. Hu, N. Pattatucci, A. M. L., “A Linkage between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation,” Science 261 (1993): 321–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angier, N., “Study Suggests Genes Sway Lesbians' Sexual Orientation,” New York Times, March 12, 1993, at A11.Google Scholar
Wickelgren, I., “Discovery of ‘Gay Gene’ Questioned,” Science 284 (1999): at 571; Marshall, E., “NIH's ‘Gay Gene’ Study Questioned,” Science 268 (1995): at 1841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, G., “Modern Biological Determinism: The Violence Initiative, The Human Genome Project, and the New Eugenics,” in Fortun, M. and Mendelssohn, E., eds., The Practices of Human Genetics (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1999): 123.Google Scholar
Id., at 2.Google Scholar
Pennisi, E., “The Human Genome,” Science 291, no. 5507 (2001): 11771180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
59
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Just Evidence: The Limits of Science in the Legal Process
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Just Evidence: The Limits of Science in the Legal Process
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Just Evidence: The Limits of Science in the Legal Process
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *