HOW SCIENCE MATTERS: DISCOURSE ON DETERRENCE IN A DEATH PENALTY DEBATE

• Date: 09 December 2003
• Published date: 09 December 2003
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1059-4337(03)30007-9
• Pages: 161-181
• Author: Theodore Sasson

HOW SCIENCE MATTERS:

DISCOURSE ON DETERRENCE

IN A DEATH PENALTY DEBATE

Theodore Sasson

ABSTRACT

Social problems researchers have documented the role of science in iden-

tifying, typifying and shaping policy responses with respect to a variety of

new social problems. Researchers have given less attention, however, to the

role of science in ongoing debates over problems that are well established

and contentious. This paper examines the influence of mainstream scientific

knowledge concerning the deterrent effects of the death penalty on a death

penalty debate in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Mainstream

scientific opposition to the deterrence hypothesis is found to influence the

claims-making strategies of death-penalty proponents, leading them to draw

heavily on common sense, to scale-back and qualify their claims concerning

deterrence, and to reframe the debate in terms of just retribution. These

effects are attributedto the cultural rules that structure debate in a legislative

decision-making body.

INTRODUCTION

Social scientists appear to be drawn to contradictory conclusions about the

influence of their work on public policy. Many tend toward cynicism, knowing

Punishment, Politics, and Culture

Studies in Law, Politics, and Society,Volume 30, 161–181

Copyright © 2004 by Elsevier Ltd.

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1059-4337/doi:10.1016/S1059-4337(03)30007-9

161

162 THEODORE SASSON

that politicians report their findings out of context, misrepresent their conclusions,

and manage to say just about anything under the guise of science. “If political

developments depended upon factual observations” writes Murray Edelman,

“false meanings would be discredited in time and a consensus upon valid ones

would emerge.” Alas, continues Edelman, “that does not happen, even over

long time periods” (1988). On the other hand, many social scientists continue to

emphasize the policy implications of their work, consult willingly with lawmakers

and the press, and exercise whatever influence they might.

As a research question, the influence of social science on policy-making has

been addressed in the literature on the construction of social problems. Spector

and Kitsuse (1977, 1987) argue that scientists making claims about the social

problems are participants in, not disinterested observers of, the process of social

problems construction. Furthermore, “(w)hether the sociologist will be treated

as a scientist by other participants in the process and accorded the special status

of a disinterested and unbiased expert is a problematic, empirical question.”

(p. 70) Social problems analysts have since examined the role of scientists as

claims-makers in the identification and construction of a number of problems,

including child abuse (Johnson, 1989); elder abuse (Baumann, 1989); “bullying”

(Furedi, 2001); global warming (McCright & Dunlap, 2000) and alcoholism

(Appleton, 1995). Such studies demonstrate that scientific expertise carries a

premium in problem definition and policy formation.1This is especially true for

so-called “valence” problems which elicit “a single, strong, fairly uniform emo-

tional response and do not have an adversarial quality.” (Nelson, 1984, quoted in

Beckett, 1996, p. 57).

Social problems researchers have devoted less attention to the influence of

scientific knowledge in contests over the framing of contentious social problems

(or “position issues,” see Beckett, 1996, Nelson, 1984). In such contests, scientific

claims are typically available in support of various contending frames (Aronson,

1984; Loseke, 1999; McMullan & Eyles, 1999). In some cases, however, such

claims are of unequal prominence and value in the scientific literature. Under

such circumstances, does the presence of claims on all sides of an issue cancel out

the significance of scientific expertise? Or does the dominant scientific viewpoint

nevertheless assert itself?2

This paper examines the influence of scientific knowledge on political discourse

in the case of the death penalty. My immediate aim is to determine the extent to

which the mainstream scientific consensus on the issue of deterrence influences

the internal dynamics and development of the death penalty debate. The broader

goal is to shed further light on the question of what social science might

accomplish in the realm of policy-making. The paper is based on a discourse

analysis of a debate over the death penalty that occurred in the Massachusetts

House of Representatives in October, 1997.