Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T09:57:43.194Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Science and the Death Penalty: DNA, Innocence, and the Debate over Capital Punishment in the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Jay D. Aronson  and
Simon A. Cole
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The death penalty debate in the United States has recently undergone a fundamental shift. The possibility of executing the innocent has emerged as some abolitionists' most salient argument, displacing debates over such issues as fairness, deterrence, and cost. Innocence has managed to move to the fore of the debate in part because of the success of death penalty opponents in attaching epistemological certainty to one particular category of postconviction exonerations, those vouched for by the authority of DNA evidence. We suggest that such moves are primarily rhetorical because, while DNA evidence may be more accurate and reliable than other forensic science, it still fundamentally probabilistic in nature and is prone to uncertainties at all stages of its production. Yet, because of the certainty attached to DNA evidence in public discourse, it can be used as a lever with which to challenge law's claims to truth‐making authority, and to undermine public trust in the death penalty. A few abolitionists and other scholars have expressed misgivings about the abolitionist embrace of the innocence argument. We push this concern further, suggesting that both abolitionists and death penalty reformers, who seek to promote a “scientific” death penalty centered on DNA evidence, draw upon a mythologized notion of “science” as a producer of epistemic certainty.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , Summer 2009 , pp. 603 - 633
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2009 

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

References

Acker, James R. 2009. Actual Innocence: Is Death Different? Behavioral Sciences and the Law 27 (3): 297–311.Google Scholar
American Bar Association. 1997. Recommendation No. 107. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
Angell, Marcia. 1996. Science on Trial: The Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in the Breast Implant Case. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Aronson, Jay D. 2007. Genetic Witness: Science, Law, and Controversy in the Making of DNA Profiling. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
ASCLAD/LAB. 2005. ASCLD/LAB Limited Scope Interim Inspection Report: Commonwealth of Virginia Division of Forensic Science Central Laboratory. April 9. http://www.dfs.virginia.gov/services/forensicBiology/externalReviewAuditReport.pdf (accessed February 5, 2009).Google Scholar
Bandes, Susan A. 2008. After Innocence: Framing Wrongful Convictions. Utah Law Review, 5. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1034472 (accessed February 20, 2009).Google Scholar
Banner, Stuart. 2002. The Death Penalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank R., De Boef, Suzanna L., and Boydstun, Amber E. 2008. The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discover of Innocence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bedau, Hugo Adam. 2004a. Abolishing the Death Penalty in the United States: An Analysis of Institutional Obstacles and Future Prospects. In Capital Punishment: Strategies for Abolition, eds. Hodgkinson, Peter and Schabas, William A., 186–207. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bedau, Hugo Adam. 2004b. An Abolitionist's Survey of the Death Penalty in America Today. In Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts from Both Sides Make Their Case, ed. Bedau, Hugo Adam and Cassell, Paul G., 15–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bedau, Hugo, and Radelet, Michael. 1987. Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases. Stanford Law Review 40:21–173.Google Scholar
Berger, Margaret A. 2000. Expert Testimony: The Supreme Court's Rules. Issues in Science and Technology 16 (4): 57–63.Google Scholar
Berman, Douglas A. 2006. Of Innocence and Over‐Punishment. In Sentencing Law and Policy. http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2006/01/of_innocence_an.html (accessed March 6, 2009).Google Scholar
Bieber, Frederick. 2005. Ethics, Science and the Law of Capital Punishment. Indiana Law Journal 80:69–72.Google Scholar
Borchard, Edwin. 1942 [1932]. Convicting the Innocent: Errors of Criminal Justice. Hamden, CT: Archon.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1998. The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason. In The Science Studies Reader, ed. Biagioli, Mario, 31–50. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butler, John M. 2005. Forensic DNA Typing: Biology, Technology, and Genetics of STR Markers, 2nd ed. New York: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bykowicz, Julie. 2008. Sizing Up Wrongful Execution Risk. Baltimore Sun, September 6.Google Scholar
Cadiz, Laura. 2004. MD‐based DNA Lab Fires Analyst over Falsified Tests. Baltimore Sun, November 18.Google Scholar
Clarke, Alan W., Lambert, Eric, and Whitt, Laurie Anne. 2000-2001. Executing the Innocent: The Next Step in the Marshall Hypotheses. New York University Review of Law and Social Change 26:309–44.Google Scholar
Cole, Simon A. 2005. More than Zero: Accounting for Error in Latent Fingerprint Identification. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 95:985–1078.Google Scholar
Cole, Simon A. 2006. Is Fingerprint Identification Valid? Rhetorics of Reliability in Fingerprint Proponents' Discourse. Law and Policy 28 (1): 109–35.Google Scholar
Cole, Simon A. 2007. Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Thinking about Expert Evidence as Expert Testimony. Villanova Law Review 52:803–42.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M. 1981. Introduction: Stages in the Empirical Programme of Relativism. Special Issue: Knowledge and Controversy: Studies of Modern Natural Science. Social Studies of Science 11 (1): 3–10.Google Scholar
Connors, Edward, Lundregan, Thomas, Miller, Neal, and McEwen, Tom. 1996. Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
Davis, Angela Y. 2003. Are Prisons Obsolete? New York: Seven Stories Press.Google Scholar
Dent, Rebecca. 2006. The Detection and Characterization of Forensic DNA Profiles Manipulated by the Addition of PCR Amplicon. MA thesis, Centre for Forensic Science, University of Western Australia.Google Scholar
Dewan, Shalia K. 2004. In Georgia Case, the Reach of DNA Appeals Is Tested. New York Times, July 19.Google Scholar
Dieter, Richard C. 1994. Millions Misspent: What Politicians Don't Say About the High Costs of the Death Penalty. Death Penalty Information Center, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/599 (accessed March 6, 2009).Google Scholar
Dow, David. 2003. Can There Be a Foolproof Death‐Penalty System? Bergen County Record, October 13.Google Scholar
Duggan, Erin. 2005. Death Penalty Foes Have Their Say. Albany Times Union, January 26.Google Scholar
Edmond, Gary. 2002a. Constructing Miscarriages of Justice: Misunderstanding Scientific Evidence in High Profile Criminal Appeals. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 22 (1): 53–89.Google Scholar
Edmond, Gary. 2002b. The Law‐Set: The Legal‐Scientific Production of Medical Propriety. Science, Technology, and Human Values 26 (2): 191–226.Google Scholar
Erickson, Doug. 2006. Tying DNA to the Needle, Oct. 21 . http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/wsj/2006/10/22/0610210525.php (accessed October 17, 2008).Google Scholar
Forst, Brian. 2004. Errors of Justice: Nature, Sources and Remedies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, James Alan. 2003. Foolproof or Foolish? Boston Globe, September 28, H11.Google Scholar
Friedman, Richard D. 2003. Squeezing Daubert Out of the Picture. Seton Hall Law Review 33:1047–70.Google Scholar
Frontline. 1997. “What Jennifer Saw: Barry Scheck. Frontline. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/interviews/scheck.html (accessed February 5, 2009.Google Scholar
Fuller, Steve. 2006. A Step toward the Legalization of Science Studies. Social Studies of Science 36 (6): 827–34.Google Scholar
Garrett, Brandon L. 2008. Judging Innocence. Columbia Law Review 108 (1): 55–142.Google Scholar
Giannelli, Paul. 2007. Wrongful Convictions and Forensic Science: The Need to Regulate Crime Labs. North Carolina Law Review 86:163–235.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd, Swijtink, Zeno, Porter, Theodore, Daston, Lorraine, Beatty, John, and Kruger, Lorenz. 1989. The Empire of Chance: How Probability Changed Science and Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Golan, Tal. 2004. Laws of Men and Laws of Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Steven. 1994. Culture Clash: Law and Science in America. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Governor's Council Final Report. 2004. Massachusetts Governor's Council on Capital Punishment. http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/docs/5‐3‐04Governorsreportcapitalpunishment.pdf (accessed March 6, 2009).Google Scholar
Gross, Samuel R., and Ellsworth, Phoebe C. 2003. Second Thoughts: Americans' Views on the Death Penalty at the Turn of the Century. In Beyond Repair? America's Death Penalty, ed. Garvey, Stephen P., 7–57. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Halfon, Saul. 1998. Collecting, Testing and Convincing: Forensic DNA Experts in the Courts. Social Studies of Science 28 (5–6): 801–28.Google Scholar
Hall, Bradley R. 2005. From William Henry Furman to Anthony Porter: The Changing Face of the Death Penalty Debate. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 95 (2): 371–80.Google Scholar
Hatch, Orrin. 2000. Statement from Hearing on Post‐Conviction DNA Testing: When Is Justice Served? United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, June 13.Google Scholar
Healy, Patrick D. 2005. Death Penalty Is Blocked by Democrats. New York Times, April 13, B1–B6.Google Scholar
Helman, Scott. 2005. Death Penalty Bill Fails in House, Romney Initiative Roundly Defeated. Boston Globe, November 16.Google Scholar
Hoffman, Joseph L. 2005. Protecting the Innocent: The Massachusetts Governor's Council Report. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 95:561–85.Google Scholar
Huber, Peter W. 1991. Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1995. Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America, Twentieth Century Fund. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2006. Just Evidence: The Limits of Science in the Legal Process. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (2): 328–41.Google Scholar
Jordan, Kathleen, and Lynch, Michael. 1998. The Dissemination, Standardization and Routinization of a Molecular Biological Technique. Social Studies of Science 28 (5–6): 773–800.Google Scholar
Krane, Dan E., Ford, Simon, Gilder, Jason R., Inman, Keith, Jamieson, Allan, Koppl, Roger, Kornfield, Irving L., Risinger, D. Michael, Rudin, Norah, Taylor, Mark Scott, and Thompson, William C. 2008. Sequential Unmasking: A Means of Minimizing Observer Effects in Forensic DNA Interpretation. Journal of Forensic Sciences 53 (4): 1006–07.Google Scholar
Kreimer, Seth F. 2005. Truth Machines and Consequences: The Light and Dark Sides of “Accuracy” in Criminal Justice. New York University Annual Survey of American Law 60:655–74.Google Scholar
Kreimer, Seth F., and Rudovsky, David. 2002. Double Helix, Double Bind: Factual Innocence and Postconviction DNA Testing. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151:547–617.Google Scholar
Kruger, Lorenz, Daston, Lorraine, and Heidelberger, Michael. 1990. The Probabilistic Revolution, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Latzer. 2003. Reflections on Innocence. Criminal Law Bulletin 39 (2): 133–49.Google Scholar
Lentol, Joseph, Weinstein, Helene, and Aubry, Jeffrion. 2005. The Death Penalty in New York. New York: New York State Assembly.Google Scholar
Liebman, James S. 2002. The New Death Penalty Debate: What's DNA Got to Do with It? Columbia Human Rights Law Review 33:527–54.Google Scholar
Liebman, James S., Fagan, Jeffrey, and West, Valerie. 2000. A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973–1995. New York: Columbia University http://www2.law.columbia.edu/instructionalservices/liebman/liebman2.pdf (accessed March 6, 2009).Google Scholar
Liptak, Adam. 2007. At 60% of Total, Texas Is Bucking Execution Trend. New York Times, December 26, A1.Google Scholar
Loevinger, Lee. 1967. Law and Science as Rival Systems. University of Florida Law Review 19:530–51.Google Scholar
Lutton, Linda. 2000. The End of Executions? In These Times, October.Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael, Cole, Simon A., McNally, Ruth, and Jordan, Kathleen. 2008. Truth Machine: The Contentious History of DNA Fingerprinting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mandery, Evan J. 2004. Massachusetts and the Changing Debate on the Death Penalty. Criminal Law Bulletin 40 (5): 518–22.Google Scholar
Markman, Stephen, and Cassell, Paul. 1988. Protecting the Innocent: A Response to the Bedau‐Radelet Study. Stanford Law Review 41:121–60.Google Scholar
Marshall, Lawrence C. 2004. The Innocence Revolution and the Death Penalty. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 1:573–84.Google Scholar
Massachusetts Governor's Office. 2003. Romney Takes Scientific Approach to Death Penalty. Press release.Google Scholar
Massachusetts Governor's Office. 2005. Relying on Science, Romney Files Death Penalty Bill. Press release.Google Scholar
McGlone, Tim. 2006. Nearly 500 Military DNA Cases Under Investigation. Virginian‐Pilot, May 17.Google Scholar
Mnookin, Jennifer L. 2001. Fingerprint Evidence in an Age of DNA Profiling. Brooklyn Law Review 67 (1): 13–70.Google Scholar
Murphy, Erin. 2007. The New Forensics: Criminal Justice, False Certainty, and the Second Generation of Scientific Evidence. California Law Review 95:721–97.Google Scholar
Nowak, Rachel. 2003. Rough Justice. New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17823985.300‐rough‐justice.html?full=true (accessed February 5, 2009).Google Scholar
Office of the Independent Investigator for the Houston Police Department Crime Laboratory and Property Room. 2006. Independent Investigator Issues Fifth Report on Houston Police Department Crime Lab. May 11. http://www.hpdlabinvestigation.org/pressrelease/060511pressrelease.pdf (accessed November 7, 2008).Google Scholar
Pinch, Trevor, and Bijker, Wiebe E. 1984. The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. Social Studies of Science 14:399–441.Google Scholar
Pokorak, Jeffrey J. 2005. Unintended Consequences of the Scientific Evidence Requirement. Indiana Law Journal 80:75–80.Google Scholar
Purnick, Joyce. 2004. Temperature Seems to Cool on Death Law. New York Times, December 20, B1.Google Scholar
Radelet, Michael. 2001. The Death Penalty and the Conviction of the Innocent. Paper presented at the Wrongful Convictions: Causes and Remedies conference, Cardozo Law School, March 22, in New York, NY.Google Scholar
Radelet, Michael L., Bedau, Hugo Adam, and Putnam, Constance L. 1992. In Spite of Innocence: Erroneous Convictions in Capital Cases. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Radelet, Michael L., and Borg, Marian J. 2000. The Changing Nature of Death Penalty Debates. Annual Review of Sociology 26:43–61.Google Scholar
Raymond, Margaret. 2001. The Problem with Innocence. Cleveland State Law Review 49:449–63.Google Scholar
Rimer, Sara. 2002. Convict's DNA Sways Labs, Not a Determined Prosecutor. New York Times, February 6, A14.Google Scholar
Risinger, D. Michael. 2007. Innocents Convicted: An Empirically Justified Factual Wrongful Conviction Rate. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 97 (3): 761–806.Google Scholar
Risinger, D. Michael, Saks, Michael J., Thompson, William C., and Rosenthal, Robert. 2002. The Daubert/Kumho Implications of Observer Effects in Forensic Science: Hidden Problems of Expectation and Suggestion. California Law Review 90 (1): 1–56.Google Scholar
Rooney, James P. The Demise of the Scientific Death Penalty. Massachusetts Citizens against the Death Penalty. http://mcadp.org/EndSciDP.html (accessed February 5, 2009).Google Scholar
Rosen, Richard A. 2003. Innocence and Death. North Carolina Law Review 82:61–113.Google Scholar
Rosen, Richard A. 2006. Reflections on Innocence. Wisconsin Law Review 2006:237–89.Google Scholar
Ruethling, Gretchen. 2005. Illinois State Police Cancels Forensic Lab's Contract, Citing Errors. New York Times, August 20, A8.Google Scholar
Saks, Michael J., and Koehler, Jonathan J. 2005. The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science. Science 309:892–95.Google Scholar
Sarat, Austin. 2003. The Future of the Death Penalty. Paper presented at Executing Justice: America and the Death Penalty, April 26, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Sarat, Austin. 2006. The Rhetoric of Race in the “New Abolitionism.” In From Lynch Mobs to the Killing State: Race and the Death Penalty in America, ed. Ogletree, Charles J. Jr. and Sarat, Austin, 260–84. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Sarat, Austin, and Hussain, Nasser. 2004. On Lawful Lawlessness: George Ryan, Executive Clemency, and the Rhetoric of Sparing Life. Stanford Law Review 56 (5): 1307–44.Google Scholar
Scheck, Barry, and Neufeld, Peter. 2002. Toward the Formation of “Innocence Commissions” in America. Judicature 86:98–105.Google Scholar
Scheck, Barry, Neufeld, Peter, and Dwyer, Jim. 2000. Actual Innoncence: Five Days to Execution and Other Dispatches from the Wrongly Convicted. New York: Penguin Putnam, Inc.Google Scholar
Scheck, Barry, Neufeld, Peter, and Dwyer, Jim. 2001. Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right. New York: Penguin Putnam, Inc.Google Scholar
Post‐Intelligencer, Seattle. 2004. Errors in Evidence. Seattle Post‐Intelligencer, March 9.Google Scholar
Serrill, Michael. 1985. Cathy and Gary in Medialand. Time, May 27, 66.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Barbara J. 1991. Beyond Reasonable Doubt and Probably Cause: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo‐American Law of Evidence. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Steiker, Carol S., and Steiker, Jordan M. 2003. Abolition in Our Times. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 1:323–43.Google Scholar
Steiker, Carol S., and Steiker, Jordan M. 2005. The Seduction of Innocence: The Attraction and Limitations of the Focus on Innocence in Capital Punishment Law and Advocacy. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 95:587–624.Google Scholar
Tenner, Edward. 1996. Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Thompson, William C. 2006. Tarnish on the “Gold Standard”: Recent Problems in Forensic DNA Testing. The Champion, January/February, 10–16.Google Scholar
Thompson, William C. 2008. The Potential for Error in Forensic DNA Testing (and How that Complicates the Use of DNA Databases for Criminal Identification). GeneWatch. http://www.gene‐watch.org/genewatch/fullpaper_Bill_Thompson.pdf (accessed February 4, 2009).Google Scholar
Thompson, William C., Ford, Simon, Doom, Travis, Raymer, Michael, and Krane, Dan E. 2003. Evaluating Forensic DNA Evidence: Essential Elements of a Competent Defense Review. Part 1. The Champion, April, 16–25.Google Scholar
Tucker, Cynthia. 2002. Promote Use of DNA Tests for All Suspects. Atlanta Journal‐Constitution, February 10, E10. Google Scholar
US Department of Justice. 2004. The FBI DNA Laboratory, A Review of Protocol and Practice Vulnerabilities. Washington, DC: Office of the Inspector General.Google Scholar
Walker, Adrian, and Wong, Doris Sue. 1997. No Death Penalty, By One Vote. Boston Globe, November 7.Google Scholar
Warden, Rob. 2005. Wilkie Collins's The Dead Alive: The Novel, the Case, and Wrongful Convictions. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Warden, Rob. 2006. The Rape that Wasn't: The First DNA Exoneration in Illinois. http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/ilDotsonSummary.html (accessed February 19, 2009).Google Scholar
Weir, Bruce S. 2007. The Rarity of DNA Profiles. Annals of Applied Statistics 1 (2): 358–70.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Robert. 2005. The Death Penalty Meets Social Science: Deterrence and Jury Behavior Under New Scrutiny. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1:151–70.Google Scholar
Zerwick, Phoebe. 2005. Mixed Results: Forensics, Right or Wrong, Often Impresses Jurors. Winston‐Salem Journal, August 29.Google Scholar
Zimring, Franklin E. 2003. The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zimring, Franklin E. 2005. Symbol and Substance in the Massachusetts Commission Report. Indiana Law Journal 80:115–29.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Furman v. Georgia, 1 408 U.S. 238 (1972).Google Scholar
Gregg v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 153 (1976).Google Scholar
Herrera v. Collins, 1506 U.S. 390 (1993).Google Scholar
Kansas v. Marsh, 126 S. Ct. 2516 (2006).Google Scholar
McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987).Google Scholar
United States v. Quinones[2002a], 205 F. Supp. 2d 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).Google Scholar
United States v. Quinones[2002b], 196 F. Supp. 2d 416 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).Google Scholar

Statutes Cited

Anti‐Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104–132, 110 Stat. 1214—(April 24, 1996).Google Scholar