Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (2):328-341 (2006)
Abstract“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.
Similar books and articles
Just Evidence: The Limits of Science in the Legal Process.Sheila Jasanoff - 2006 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (2):328-341.
A General Structure for Legal Arguments About Evidence Using Bayesian Networks.Norman Fenton, Martin Neil & David A. Lagnado - 2013 - Cognitive Science 37 (1):61-102.
The Limits of Influence: Psychokinesis and the Philosophy of Science.Stephen E. Braude (ed.) - 1986 - Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Legal stories and the process of proof.Floris Bex & Bart Verheij - 2013 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 21 (3):253-278.
Constructing Miscarriages of Justice: Misunderstanding Scientific Evidence in High Profile Criminal Appeals.Gary Edmond - 2002 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 22 (1):53-89.
Formal legal truth and substantive truth in judicial fact-finding -- their justified divergence in some particular cases.Robert S. Summers - 1999 - Law and Philosophy 18 (5):497 - 511.
Michael Ruse on science and faith: Seeking mutual understanding.David Wisdo - 2011 - Zygon 46 (3):639-654.
Is It Possible to Provide Evidence of Insufficient Evidence? The Precautionary Principle at the WTO.Elisa Vecchione - 2012 - Chicago Journal of International Law 13 (1).
'h Θάλασσα ϰoινή: Fishermen, The Sea, And The Limits Of Ancient Greek Regulatory Reach'.E. Lytle - 2012 - Classical Antiquity 31 (1):1-55.
The Limits of Influence: Psychokinesis and the Philosophy of Science.Stephen E. Braude - 1996 - Upa.
Irreconcilable differences? The troubled marriage of science and law.Susan Haack - 2009 - Law and Contemporary Problems 72 (1).
Legal integration of Islam: a transatlantic comparison.Christian Joppke - 2013 - Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Biologising Paternity, Moralising Maternity: The Construction of Parenthood in the Determination of Paternity Through the Courts in Portugal. [REVIEW]Helena Machado - 2008 - Feminist Legal Studies 16 (2):215-236.
References found in this work
The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations.Robert King Merton - 1973 - University of Chicago Press.
The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies.Michael Gibbons (ed.) - 1994 - Sage Publications.
Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification.Simon A. Cole - 2002 - Journal of the History of Biology 35 (1):204-206.
Laws of Men and Laws of Nature: The History of Scientific Expert Testimony in England and America. [REVIEW]Tal Golan - 2006 - British Journal for the History of Science 39 (3):452-454.