Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T07:30:48.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Different Agenda: The Supreme Court, Empirical Research Evidence, and Capital Punishment Decisions, 1986–1989

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

James R. Acker
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This article examines the Supreme Court's use of social science research evidence in 28 capital punishment cases decided between 1986 and 1989. The study describes the frequency and major correlates of the justices' citation of social science authorities in the 1986–89 sequence of cases. Social science evidence figured significantly in several death penalty cases, although a majority of the justices were more eager to discredit and discount research conclusions than to use them as premises for their decisions, and prevailing case opinions generally promoted principles that had little to do with empirical evidence concerning the administration of capital punishment. Social science citation patterns in majority and dissenting opinions, and in the opinions of “liberal” and “conservative” Supreme Court justices, in significant respects parallel the Court's shifting doctrinal premises in capital punishment decisions.

Type
Symposium: Research on the Death Penalty
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , 1993 , pp. 65 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 by The Law and Society Association

Footnotes

I thank Stephen Wasby and the Law & Society Review anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments. An earlier version was presented at the 1991 annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco.

References

References

Acker, James R. (1987) “Social Sciences and the Criminal Law: Capital Punishment by the Numbers—An Analysis of McCleskey v. Kemp,” 23 Criminal Law Bulletin 454.Google Scholar
Acker, James R. (1990a) “Thirty Years of Social Science in Supreme Court Criminal Cases,” 12 Law & Policy 1.Google Scholar
Acker, James R. (1990b) “Social Science in Supreme Court Criminal Cases and Briefs: The Actual and Potential Contribution of Social Scientists as Amici Curiae,” 14 Law & Human Behavior 25.Google Scholar
Acker, James R. (1990c) “Dual and Unusual: Competing Views of Death Penalty Adjudication,” 26 Criminal Law Bulletin 123.Google Scholar
Acker, James R. (1991) “Social Science in Supreme Court Death Penalty Cases: Citation Practices and Their Implications,” 8 Justice Q. 421.Google Scholar
Acker, James R. (1992) “Seed to Root to Branch: Briefwriters' Contributions to Supreme Court Capital Punishment Doctrine,” 17 Criminal Justice Rev. 20.Google Scholar
Acker, James R., & Walsh, Elizabeth R. (1989) “Challenging the Death Penalty under State Constitutions,” 42 Vanderbilt Law Rev. 1299.Google Scholar
Aguirre, Adalberto Jr., & Baker, David V. (1990) “Empirical Research on Racial Discrimination in the Imposition of the Death Penalty,” 22 Criminal Justice Abstracts 135.Google Scholar
Baldus, David C., Woodworth, George, & Pulaski, Charles A. Jr. (1990) Equal Justice and the Death Penalty: A Legal and Empirical Analysis. Boston: Northeastern Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Benner, Laurence A. (1989) “Requiem for Miranda: The Rehnquist Court's Voluntariness Doctrine in Historical Perspective,” 67 Washington Univ. Law Q. 59.Google Scholar
Bersoff, Donald N. (1987) “Social Science Data and the Supreme Court: Lockhart as a Case in Point,” 42 American Psychologist 52.Google Scholar
Bowers, William J. (1984) Legal Homicide: Death as Punishment in America, 1864-1982. Boston: Northeastern Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Bowers, William J. (1988) “The Effect of Executions Is Brutalization, not Deterrence,” in Haas & Inciardi 1988.Google Scholar
Burt, Robert A. (1987) “Disorder in the Court: The Death Penalty and the Constitution,” 85 Michigan Law Rev. 1741.Google Scholar
Chemerinsky, Erwin (1989) “Foreword: The Vanishing Constitution,” 103 Harvard Law Rev. 43.Google Scholar
Cornell Law Review (1984) Special Project: “Capital Punishment in 1984: Abandoning the Pursuit of Fairness and Consistency,” 69 Cornell Law Rev. 1129.Google Scholar
Cowan, Claudia L., Thompson, William C., & Ellsworth, Phoebe C. (1984) “The Effects of Death Qualification on Jurors' Predisposition to Convict and on the Quality of Deliberation,” 8 Law & Human Behavior 53.Google Scholar
Daniels, Stephen (1979) “Social Science and Death Penalty Cases: Reflections on Change and the Empirical Justification of Constitutional Policy,” 1 Law & Policy Q. 336.Google Scholar
Davis, Kenneth Culp (1942) “An Approach to Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process,” 55 Harvard Law Rev. 364.Google Scholar
Dorin, Dennis D. (1981) “Two Different Worlds: Criminologists, Justices and Racial Discrimination in the Imposition of Capital Punishment in Rape Cases,” 72 J. of Criminal Law & Criminology 1667.Google Scholar
Ellsworth, Phoebe C. (1988) “Unpleasant Facts: The Supreme Court's Response to Empirical Research on Capital Punishment,” in Haas & Inciardi 1988.Google Scholar
Ewing, Charles Patrick (1991) “Preventive Detention and Execution: The Constitutionality of Punishing Future Crimes,” 15 Law & Human Behavior 139.Google Scholar
Faigman, David L. (1991) “‘Normative Constitutional Fact-Finding’: Exploring the Empirical Component of Constitutional Interpretation,” 139 Univ. of Pennsylvania Law Rev. 541.Google Scholar
Finch, Michael, & Ferraro, Mark (1986) “The Empirical Challenge to Death-qualified Juries: On Further Examination,” 65 Nebraska Law Rev. 21.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, Robert, & Ellsworth, Phoebe C. (1984) “Due Process vs. Crime Control: Death Qualification and Jury Attitudes,” 8 Law & Human Behavior 31.Google Scholar
Grisso, Thomas, & Saks, Michael J. (1991) “Psychology's Influence on Constitutional Interpretation: A Comment on How to Succeed,” 15 Law & Human Behavior 205.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, & Scarrow, Howard (1980) “Mathematics, Social Science, and the Law,” in Saks, M.J. & Baron, C. H., eds., The Use/Nonuse/Misuse of Applied Social Research in the Courts. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books.Google Scholar
Haas, K. C., & Inciardi, J. A., eds. (1988) Challenging Capital Punishment: Legal and Social Science Approaches. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Hafemeister, Thomas L., & Melton, Gary B. (1987) “The Impact of Social Science Research on the Judiciary,” in Melton 1987c.Google Scholar
Haney, Craig (1980) “Psychology and Legal Change: On the Limits of a Factual Jurisprudence,” 4 Law & Human Behavior 147.Google Scholar
Haney, Craig (1982) “Data and Decisions: Judicial Reform and the Use of Social Science,” in Dubois, P. L., ed., The Analysis of Judicial Reform. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Dubois, P. L. (1984a) “On the Selection of Capital Juries: The Biasing Effects of the Death-Qualification Process,” 8 Law & Human Behavior 121.Google Scholar
Dubois, P. L. (1984b) “Examining Death Qualification: Further Analysis of the Process Effect,” 8 Law & Human Behavior 133.Google Scholar
Dubois, P. L. (1991) “The Fourteenth Amendment and Symbolic Legality: Let Them Eat Due Process,” 15 Law & Human Behavior 183.Google Scholar
Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review (1989) Comment: “Too Much Justice: A Legislative Response to McCleskey v. Kemp” 24 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Rev. 437.Google Scholar
Hashimoto, Dean M. (1991) “Justice Brennan's Use of Scientific and Empirical Evidence in Constitutional and Administrative Law,” 32 Boston College Law Rev. 739.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Joseph L. (1990) “The Supreme Court's New Vision of Federal Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners,” 1989 Supreme Court Rev. 165.Google Scholar
Karst, Kenneth L. (1960) “Legislative Facts in Constitutional Litigation,” 1960 Supreme Court Rev. 75.Google Scholar
Levine, Murray, & Howe, Barbara (1985) “The Penetration of Social Science into Legal Culture,” 7 Law & Policy 173.Google Scholar
Marquart, James W., & Sorensen, Jonathan R. (1989) “A National Study of the Furman-commuted Inmates: Assessing the Threat to Society from Capital Offenders,” 23 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Rev. 5.Google Scholar
Marvell, Thomas B. (1978) Appellate Courts and Lawyers: Information Gathering in the Adversary System. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Melton, Gary B. (1987a) “Guidelines for Effective Diffusion of Child Development Research into the Legal System,” in Melton 1987c.Google Scholar
Melton, Gary B. (1987b) “Bringing Psychology to the Legal System: Opportunities, Obstacles, and Efficacy,” 42 American Psychologist 488.Google Scholar
Melton, Gary B.. (1987c) Reforming the Law: Impact of Child Development Research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Meltsner, Michael (1973) Cruel and Unusual: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur Selwyn, & Barron, Jerome A. (1975) “The Supreme Court, the Adversary System, and the Flow of Information to the Justices: A Preliminary Inquiry,” 61 Virginia Law Rev. 1187.Google Scholar
Monahan, John, & Walker, Laurens (1986) “Social Authority: Obtaining, Evaluating, and Establishing Social Science in Law,” 134 Univ. of Pennsylvania Law Rev. 477.Google Scholar
Packer, Herbert L. (1968) The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patchel, Kathleen (1991) “The New Habeas,” 42 Hastings Law J. 939.Google Scholar
Perry, Gail S., & Melton, Gary B. (1983–84) “Precedential Value of Judicial Notice of Social Facts: Parham as an Example,” 22 J. of Family Law 633.Google Scholar
Risinger, D. Michael, Denbeaux, Mark P., & Saks, Michael J. (1989) “Exorcism of Ignorance as a Proxy for Rational Knowledge: The Lessons of Handwriting Identification ‘Expertise,‘” 137 Univ. of Pennsylvania Law Rev. 731.Google Scholar
Rosen, Paul L. (1972) The Supreme Court and Social Science. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenblum, Victor G. (1977) “The Uses of Social Science injudicial Decision Making.” A report to the National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Saks, Michael J. (1990) “Judicial Attention to the Way the World Works,” 75 Iowa Law Rev. 1011.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Bernard (1983) Super Chief: Earl Warren and His Supreme Court—A Judicial Biography. New York: New York Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Sperlich, Peter W. (1980a) “… And Then There Were Six: The Decline of the American Jury,” 63 Judicature 262.Google Scholar
Sperlich, Peter W. (1980b) “Social Science Evidence and the Courts: Reaching beyond the Adversary Process,” 63 Judicature 280.Google Scholar
Tabak, Ronald J. (1990–91) “Is Racism Irrelevant? Or Should the Fairness in Death Sentencing Act Be Enacted to Substantially Diminish Racial Discrimination in Capital Sentencing?” 18 New York Univ. Rev. of Law & Social Change 777.Google Scholar
Thompson, William C. (1989) “Death Qualification after Wainwright v. Witt and Lockhart v. McCree” 13 Law & Human Behavior 185.Google Scholar
Thompson, William C., Cowan, Claudia L., Ellsworth, Phoebe C., & Harrington, Joan C. (1984) “Death Penalty Attitudes and Conviction Proneness: The Translation of Attitudes into Verdicts,” 8 Law & Human Behavior 95.Google Scholar
Tremper, Charles R. (1987) “The High Road to the Bench: Presenting Research Findings in Appellate Briefs,” in Melton 1987c.Google Scholar
Walker, Laurens, & Monahan, John (1988) “Social Facts: Scientific Methodology as Legal Precedent,” 76 California Law Rev. 877.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Robert (1983) “Deregulating Death,” 1983 Supreme Court Rev. 305.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Robert (1990) “A Great Writ While It Lasted,” 81 J. of Criminal Law & Criminology 9.Google Scholar
Woolhandler, Ann (1988) “Rethinking the Judicial Reception of Legislative Facts,” 41 Vanderbilt Law Rev. 111.Google Scholar
Zimring, Franklin E., & Hawkins, Gordon (1986) Capital Punishment and the American Agenda. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978).Google Scholar
Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983).Google Scholar
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969).Google Scholar
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Google Scholar
Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776 (1987).Google Scholar
Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407 (1990).Google Scholar
Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977).Google Scholar
Coleman v. Thompson, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L. Ed. 2d 640 (1991).Google Scholar
Dugger v. Adams, 489 U.S. 401 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982).Google Scholar
Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).Google Scholar
Mabry, Grigsby v., 569 F.Supp. 1273 (E.D. Ark. 1983), aff'd 758 F.2d 226 (8th Cir. 1985) (en banc), reversed sub nom. Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986) Hitchcock v. Dugger, 481 U.S. 393 (1987).Google Scholar
Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578 (1988).Google Scholar
Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney v. Tamayo–Reyes, 112 S.Ct. 1715, 118 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1992).Google Scholar
Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978).Google Scholar
Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986).Google Scholar
Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U.S. 262 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987).Google Scholar
McCleskey v. Zant, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 113 L. Ed. 2d 517 (1991).Google Scholar
McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988).Google Scholar
Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1 (1989).Google Scholar
Payne v. Tennessee, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1991).Google Scholar
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989).Google Scholar
Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976).Google Scholar
Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976).Google Scholar
Sawyer v. Whitley, 112 S.Ct. 2514, 120 L. Ed. 2d 269 (1992).Google Scholar
Sochor v. Florida, 112 S.Ct. 2114, 119 L. Ed. 2d 326 (1992).Google Scholar
Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989).Google Scholar
Sumner v. Shuman, 483 U.S. 66 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989).Google Scholar
Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987).Google Scholar
Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990).Google Scholar
Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).Google Scholar
Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976).Google Scholar