14 ms·

Retired detective: We got it wrong in Robert Roberson's death penalty case

175 points by rossant 2y ago

rossant 2y ago
Texas may well execute soon an innocent man on the false premise of "shaken baby syndrome". [1] He would be the first in US history. This article was written by the police officer who helped send Robert Roberson to the death row in 2003. He changed his mind since then. John Grisham has also written about this case. [2] Please spread the word. As the retired police officer wrote: > It would be a terrible legacy for all of us to be associated with executing an innocent man based on a rush to judgment and bad science. We must prevent Texas from making a tragic, irreversible mistake. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402 [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-may-execute-a-man-based-on-a-scrapped-medical-theory-death-row-autism-prison-b3c44493 https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-may-execute-a-man-based-o... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/24/texas-death-row-robert-roberson-supreme-court-shaken-baby-syndrome https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/24/texas-death-ro... [4] https://eu.statesman.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2024/05/16/texas-law-junk-science-false-trial-execution/73685547007/ https://eu.statesman.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2024/05...
- bryanrasmussen 2y ago
  I always find the phrasing of these posts weird, as if we have to pretend that Texas has not executed innocent people before and this would be a first. on edit: not just the post, but the articles, we must pretend that of course this would be a first time event that would otherwise sully the fine nature of the criminal justice system with accidentally murdering someone.
  - rossant 2y ago
    It would be the first execution of someone accused of SBS, not the first execution of an innocent individual.
    - philipov 2y ago
      The phrasing takes pains to make it sound like the latter rather than the former, unless you're paying attention.
      - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
        How would you phrase it better. Sorry if it sounds confrontational to ask this question, but I can’t think of spot anything out of sorts with this phrasing.
        snthd 2y ago
        Maybe a semicolon? Not sure any of us know where those are on the keyboard.
      - majormajor 2y ago
        >Texas may well execute soon an innocent man on the false premise of "shaken baby syndrome". [1] He would be the first in US history. This is pretty clear to me. If you wanted to make it sound like you're claiming, you'd phrase it something like "Texas may well execute soon an innocent man, the first in US history, on the false premise of "shaken baby syndrome."" As it is, the first sentence very specifically scopes down this case to "shaken baby syndrome."
        Retric 2y ago
        I disagree if you wanted the first to be clear: The disproven ‘shaken baby syndrome’ may for the first time result in a man’s execution in Texas. His innocence … The odd wording is specifically there to mislead someone.
        bryanrasmussen 2y ago
        I don't think it's there to mislead someone on purpose, I just think people feel uncomfortable pointing out Texas is killing people that are innocent and thus end up not pointing it out or accidentally making things sound like "oh no, Texas is going to make a mistake they don't normally make!" It is clear that it is meant the shaken baby syndrome is what is the first here, but still it could be taken the other way, and it ends up downplaying how contemptible the State's actions are, even though the poster really wants to highlight that. I guess I would prefer something like - "Texas, continuing its tradition of executing innocent people, will for the first time use the dubious science of Shaken Baby Syndrome as its cause." It's not just the post, everybody does it whenever they say "Texas might execute an innocent person" they ignore that Texas has executed people that were extremely likely to be innocent (so likely that it is reasonable just to describe them that way - in case anyone has problems with my phrasing here)
  - rustcleaner 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - afthonos 2y ago
      I’m not sure what definition of “criminal” you’re using to make that assessment. All the ones I know are based on laws, which are enacted by states. You have to accept the very framing you’re decrying to call anything criminal.
      - behringer 2y ago
        Criminals often have a series of codes or personal rules that guide them. It doesn't make them any less criminal.
        _heimdall 2y ago
        It's only criminal because those in charge wrote criminal states declaring those acts as such. There's no universal, fundamental code that defines criminal or right and wrong.
      - immibis 2y ago
        We can start with "killing an innocent person is criminal"...
        manquer 2y ago
        What has innocent to do with it ? Innocent under whose eyes ? one man’s revolutionary is another man’s terrorist. what morality and code stands the test of time ? actions which was legal and moral say 200 years ago would be illegal and amoral now , who is to say how 200 years in future would see our framework for ethics from now ? Taking any sentient life is a crime against nature and humanity. Societies supporting death penalty are not civilized for the same reasons any cannibals are not. Killing is killing, what difference does it make if you were hungry or felt scared or vengeance or merely sadistic to justify it .
  - dustfinger 2y ago
    > It would be a terrible legacy for all of us to be associated with executing an innocent man based on a rush to judgment and bad science. We must prevent Texas from making a tragic, irreversible mistake. I believe that this statement is making specific reference to this particular case. (I miss-read this next part, but will leave my mistake here with this comment. See below conversation. Sorry for the confusion) Earlier in the article it is made very clear that this has not been the only execution of an innocent person wrongly accused of shaken baby syndrome: > According to the National Registry of Exonerations, there have been at least 32 exonerations of those wrongfully convicted under the shaken baby hypothesis.
    - Thorrez 2y ago
      Were any of those 32 people executed?
      - dustfinger 2y ago
        Oh, I completly miss-read the word "Exonerations" as executions. Thank you for correcting me.
  - RajT88 2y ago
    From what I understand, Texas executes possibly/probably/definitely innocent people with regularity.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      That seems likes a pretty bold statement to make without backing it up further. To say a state with the death penalty could sometimes get it wrong is one thing, but your phrasing makes it sound more like the state regularly commits murder.
      - int_19h 2y ago
        I suggest taking a look at Radley Balko's writings, for starters.
      - bugglebeetle 2y ago
        Abbot just pardoned an open white supremacist, who publicly expressed his desire to kill BLM protesters, before actually going out and doing it, so your shock at the questioning of how criminal justice is pursued in Texas seems a bit naive.
        Hnrobert42 2y ago
        This is such an ad hoc argument.
        _heimdall 2y ago
        I wasn't questioning criminal justice in Texas broadly, the topic was innocent people being put to death. > From what I understand, Texas executes possibly/probably/definitely innocent people with regularity. The GP comment seems to imply that Texas is intentionally putting innocent people to death regularly. That had nothing to do with the governor or pardons.
        bugglebeetle 2y ago
        [flagged]
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    I think the point is in this case, it can indeed be stopped since executions, once done, can't be undone. It's not an academic topic, it's a life and death topic, a basic morality issue. The current Texas government is quite corrupt, particularly Ken Paxton, the attorney general, but I'm not sure that matters here other than as a tangential point of data.
- MisterBastahrd 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - rustcleaner 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    So if two people have legal guns. They can start shooting at each other. Completely legally because they are both standing their ground? Texas is wild west. Of course they would probably dig that characterization and think nothing is wrong with this situation.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      Shoot before the other guy does. Bonus points if your politics align with the Governor.
      - moshun 2y ago
        Considering who the Governor just pardoned, you don't need the other guy to be armed or threatening, just shoot and you're good.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        I agree that pardon is deplorable, but the other person was armed in that case.
        MisterBastahrd 2y ago
        Yes, but the particulars of the case are that the guy decided to seek out a BLM crowd, drove his car up to a side street where the crowd was, shot into the crowd, and managed to kill a guy with a gun. Even WITH clear motive, his behavior to even get into that situation, eyewitness testimony, and a jury conviction, he was pardoned anyway.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  And then you go to Supreme Court, and SCOTUS says: > The Constitution, Scalia wrote, does not prevent the government from executing a person who new evidence indicates might be “actually innocent” — that is, someone with the potential to legally demonstrate they did not commit the crime for which they were convicted. And have locked in on this: > In Shinn v. Ramirez, the court voted 6 to 3 to overrule two lower courts and disregard the innocence claims of Barry Lee Jones, a prisoner on Arizona’s death row. Importantly, the majority did not rule that it found Jones’s innocence claims unpersuasive. Instead, it ruled that the federal courts are barred from even considering them. Thomas wrote the opinion.
  - Mathnerd314 2y ago
    https://capitalpunishmentincontext.org/resources/casesummaries/herrera https://capitalpunishmentincontext.org/resources/casesummari... > A proper remedy for claim of actual innocence based on new evidence, which is discovered too late to file a new trial motion, would be not federal habeas relief, but rather to file for executive clemency with the state. https://www.pullanyoung.com/blog/dont-panic-over-shinn-v-ramirez-but-also-make-sure-to-hire-competent-state-habeas-counsel https://www.pullanyoung.com/blog/dont-panic-over-shinn-v-ram... > Shinn does not affect “new factual predicate” claims. If a witness changes their story 5 years after trial, you can still validly raise that claim both as a subsequent state writ and as a 2254 federal petition. Same goes for new scientific evidence, Brady violations, etc. None of those things can be characterized as the defendant's fault for not raising them earlier. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/01/arizona-death-row-supreme-court-shinn-innocence/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/01/arizona-d... > federal courts should show enormous deference to the states, even when federal judges believe a state court is wrong. These decisions seems more about federalism? I mean, if you want to blame someone, blame the involved state for not considering the exculpatory evidence. For example Barry Lee Jones is out now - but it is because of an Arizona judge, not a federal one.
    - burutthrow1234 2y ago
      The Supreme Court is extremely selective about what cases should be deferred to states and which should be the realm of the federal courts. They needed to federally abolish affirmative action in college admissions, but when a person is being put to death unjustly that's a state issue. If a website designer hypothetically refuses to design a website for a gay couple that's a federal issue.
- giantg2 2y ago
  There are plenty of other people wrongly convicted of shaken baby crimes too. Seems more common than most people think.
  - datavirtue 2y ago
    In Ohio, a man was arrested for murder 16 years after being convicted of shaking a baby (and subsequently serving another prison term) when the "baby" died from complications. The "baby" (young adult at passing) was severely disabled their whole life.
- anamax 2y ago
  Several innocent people die from being imprisoned every day. No one cares, because they die in the prison infirmary, but they're just as dead and they were killed because of their conviction, just like they were executed. (No, I'm not talking about folks on death row, although innocents on death row also die in the infirmary.) Not only do we kill more innocents that way in absolute numbers, it's also greater in percentage numbers. (Death penalty cases get lots of review. We can argue about whether it's enough, but it's far more review than life without parole, not to mention lesser sentences which end up being life.)
  - andrewjf 2y ago
    This kind of argument is exhausting. I don't know if there's a name for it or if there's some kind of "razor" for it, like; "Moving in any direction of bettering things is always going to be confronted by someone who thinks it's not good enough and there's some far bigger problem somewhere else so let me distract from the actual good that's trying to be done here" To the actual point - I do think there's a difference between inmates dying in prison for other reasons (and we should reduce those) vs. sentencing someone to execution for a crime they didn't commit.
    - anamax 2y ago
      I didn't say anything about doing less or that your concerns were invalid. My point is that there's more "bang for the buck" wrt saving innocents from being dying due to wrongful "not death penalty" convictions, even if you discount "dying in the infirmary" quite a bit relative to "dying in the chair." I'm not saying that you shouldn't care about the death penalty. My comment is addressed to people who care about dying due to wrongful conviction.
      - 20after4 2y ago
        On top of that, all the people who die in policy custody before they are even convicted of a crime. Or before even being accused of a crime, simply because of trigger happy cops.
      - 2y ago
- chmod775 2y ago
  > We must prevent Texas from making a tragic, irreversible mistake. Another tragic, irreversible mistake. The man has already been on death row for two decades. Imagine spending 20 years in a cell waiting to be executed because people believe you murdered your own child. Nothing will undo the kind of damage that does to a person, nor will anything make up for the years lost. I'd struggle to come up with something more cruel. Honestly I'd consider it merciful to kill someone immediately rather than putting them through decades of psychological torture. At least that would only be barbaric.
reify 2y ago
[flagged]
- stereoabuse 2y ago
  Read the article. Robert Roberson has not been executed yet.
- denkmoon 2y ago
  What would you have them say? Dress it up in flowery language? Grovel? It is plain spoken, and appears to be correct.
  - HKH2 2y ago
    In this day and age, an apology is purely an admission of guilt. Everything you do and say will be used against you in a court of public opinion. It is better to say nothing at all and let the 15 minutes of shame pass without stoking the flames.
- nolongerthere 2y ago
  He literally followed the science, what would you have him do? He did an investigation and believed the experts. We have people every day screaming about how the science dictates this or that (most recently climate science is all the rage). It appeared at the time to be unimpeachably true, based on the best experts of the time. Even in his investigation doctors withheld key evidence which he didn’t learn until later. But really it’s not even up to him, the state/DA chooses who to prosecute not the lead detective or any police officer. The judge decides if the case has merit and ultimately the jury convicts based on the presented arguments. Placing all the blame solely on the lead detective is disingenuous and unfair.
neonate 2y ago
John Grisham's article about this is readable at https://archive.ph/0CmxS https://archive.ph/0CmxS original is https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-may-execute-a-man-based-on-a-scrapped-medical-theory-death-row-autism-prison-b3c44493 https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-may-execute-a-man-based-o...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
WillPostForFood 2y ago
Dr. John Ross, the pediatrician who examined Nikki the day she died, testified that she had bruising on her chin, as well as along her left cheek and jaw. Dr. Ross said she also had a large subdural hematoma, which he described as “bleeding outside the brain, but 3 inside the skull.” He said there was edema on the brain tissue, and that her brain had actually shifted from the right side to the left. He said that, in his opinion, Nikki Courtney said that she once witnessed [Roberson] shake Nikki by the arms in an attempt to make her stop crying. Rachel Cox then testified that [Roberson] had a “bad temper,” and that she had witnessed him shake and spank Nikki when she was crying. Rachel said she had seen this happen about ten times. She also recalled a time that [Roberson] threatened to kill Nikki. This case was reviewed under Texas' Junk Science law. It's a more complicated case than a cheap conviction on bad science. You can read the prosecution's brief. There is ample evidence of terrible behavior. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7546/272085/20230714145417415_Roberson%20BIO%20FINAL%20Tables%20SIGNED.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7546/272085/202...
- DaiPlusPlus 2y ago
  > There is ample evidence of terrible behavior. (IANAL, etc.) I assume you're referring to the claims made by the prosecution listed in the Introduction of the document? AFAIK, that's not "evidence" of abuse, but what the prosecution is alleging. Big difference. ...but even if that were the case, being a shitty parent - even to the point of physical abuse, doesn't justify the end result here given that the evidence cited in TFA makes a solid argument that the conviction is unsound. Ever seen "12 Angry Men"? If not, you should. ----- (Also, as someone on the spectrum with low-affect, even before reading about this case a few years ago, I was (and still am) terrified of being falsely convicted of something solely on my mannerisms - so I suppose I'm biased towards the defendent here)
  - jimbob45 2y ago
    Ever seen "12 Angry Men"? If not, you should. The kid was guilty in that movie though. The only other possible explanation is that he had a brother that no one ever mentions or interrogates with video game-like levels of precognition to know perfectly how to frame his brother. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3597&context=cklawreview https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...
andrewstuart 2y ago
[flagged]
greenyoda 2y ago
Here's what the Innocence Project has to say about this case: What to Know About Robert Roberson on Texas Death Row for a Crime That Never Occurred https://innocenceproject.org/what-to-know-about-robert-roberson-on-texas-death-row-for-a-crime-that-never-occurred/ https://innocenceproject.org/what-to-know-about-robert-rober...
- musha68k 2y ago
  Not only convicted under the highly controversial shaken baby syndrome theory (not straightforward to prove; hence erronous) and ignoring medical evidence but his undiagnosed autism led to unfair judgments of his behavior... irreversible errors in the US justice system. Maybe it's high time to overthink the death penalty?
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    > debunked "shaken baby syndrome" theory Are you telling me that shaking babies doesn't kill them? > undiagnosed autism I think autism mild enough to not be diagnosed cannot possibly excuse somebody for shaking a baby, and as somebody with autism so mild that it went undiagnosed for 30 years I'm personally offended that anybody could believe otherwise.
    - rossant 2y ago
      >> debunked "shaken baby syndrome" theory > Are you telling me that shaking babies doesn't kill them? It sure can, and a number of babies diagnosed with SBS have been abused or killed. However, the way shaking is typically inferred from a small set of supposedly characteristic medical findings (radiological and pathological evidence of blood in the layers surrounding the brain and at the back of the eyes) has a weak scientific evidence based — determining abuse requires a far more sophisticated approach. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        In the case being discussed above, there was also witness testimony saying the accused was seen to shake the baby on several occasions. If that testimony hasn't been recanted (has it?) and we're expected to think that SBS didn't kill the baby then a theory of this man's innocence is in effect a theory about that witness trying to murder him using the legal system, or that shaking the baby on several occasions and the baby dying are entirely unrelated (extremely dubious.) Maybe the state has failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt but unless that witness has recanted I think he's more likely than not to be guilty.
nolongerthere 2y ago
The main lesson here is science changes, no matter how incontrovertible it appears. No matter how many experts corroborate your hypothesis and claims, science is evergreen. Don’t let people tell you “it’s settled” it almost never is, especially when it comes to areas that are highly politicized (like SBS was).
- qingcharles 2y ago
  And sadly the US justice system isn't designed for post-conviction changes. Typically whatever happened at trial is set in stone, even if it's inherently absurd. Errors of law are easier to get fixed than errors of fact which are normally not touched by appellate courts.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - gregw2 2y ago
    It’s not the US justice system, but Texas has a 2013 law to allow for review when science has changed, and shaken baby syndrome was one of the reason for that law. Still, when this case was reviewed under that law, the apellate court didn’t reverse the judgement. Having read many additional facts of the case, I am not wise enough in 30 minutes to judge and am happy others have taken time to do so (on both sides).
    - qingcharles 2y ago
      You make a good point -- my answer actually lacked nuance. States are slowly allowing for post-conviction review of factual matters. Sadly, these steps usually only start once the regular chain (primarily law-based challenges) of appellate review is complete, so it can be five or ten years before you get to make your case. A lot of this stems from the swathe of exonerations that happened once DNA was introduced and freed a large number of provably innocent people previously found guilty.
- rossant 2y ago
  Yes, see e.g. https://www.law.ua.edu/resources/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2062/Issue%203/TUERKHEIMER-Science-Dependent_Prosecution.pdf https://www.law.ua.edu/resources/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2062...
Jimmc414 2y ago
https://archive.is/twqkI https://archive.is/twqkI
musha68k 2y ago
Capital punishment is amoral also because it is inherently ignorant.
skirge 2y ago
It's not only US. Many justice systems depend on direct witness or experts and expert who can say anything. Witness can be prosecuted for lying, experts not because they only have opinions.
- qingcharles 2y ago
  That's why technically both sides should have experts. A lot of trials where experts are called devolve into simply a "battle of the experts" as the evidence is too close or too complicated. Sadly, the prosecution often has an unlimited budget for experts and the defendant often has zero. The judge can rule that the state put up some funds for a defense expert, but this is usually a fraction of the cost that the prosecution spend. Additionally, if you are being defended by a public defender or a cheap defense attorney then they will rarely file a motion for expert fees as they don't have the time to coordinate with an expert and go through the evidence to create a narrative for trial. Furthermore, lawyers are trained in the law, not in things like forensic science, so if your lawyer knows nothing about the techniques being used to convict you then they won't be able to adequately cross-examine the prosecution's expert nor question their own expert (if they have one).
  - rossant 2y ago
    In France it's even worse as the State experts are assumed to be Right and there is no intended procedure for the defense to hire their own experts, at least not in a way where both sides would discuss on an equal foot. There's even an obscure article of the law stating that a trial can be adjourned if a witness contradicts a State expert that testified before them.
    - frenchman_in_ny 2y ago
      Though, unlike in the US, the investigators in France are required to seek evidence of both innocence and guilt [0]. So theoretically there's no need for defense experts. [0] https://www.justice.gouv.fr/justice-france/justice-penale/procedure-penale#:~:text=L'enqu%C3%AAte%20permet%20de%20rassembler,la%20personne%20mise%20en%20cause https://www.justice.gouv.fr/justice-france/justice-penale/pr....
DeathArrow 2y ago
[flagged]
- qingcharles 2y ago
  Can you be a civilized country and still have the death penalty?
  - thatwasunusual 2y ago
    IMO, no, because killing someone can't be undone. It's a tragedy when someone innocent is sent to prison. Killing someone - and possibly someone innocent - is just unimaginable.
  - lynx23 2y ago
    No, you can't. Thats the biggest flaw with the US pretending to be some kind of father figure for other, supposedly uncivilized countries.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - thefaux 2y ago
    This is a hard question. It gets to questions of morals very quickly and it is very hard to debate people over morals. There is one side that thinks killing is an appropriate punishment for some crimes and another that doesn't. Little constructive debate can happen around this line. It is much like the abortion debate in this way. As a practical matter, I personally believe it is almost impossible to implement a state sanctioned death penalty without executing innocent people. Moreover, life and death decisions are handed to people with political power which automatically corrupts their judgment. I actually can sympathize with some of the positive cases for the death penalty. It has a strong theoretical appeal but I find it impossible to support practically when I think through the implications of any implementation.
    - qingcharles 2y ago
      I agree it's a hard question. The USA could vote out the death penalty at any time, it's not baked into the constitution. But the USA doesn't, so we have to accept the democratic judgment. I do think it's literally impossible to have a death penalty without killing innocents. If you look at the stream of criminal convictions that get reversed by appellate courts on a daily basis, combined with all the exonerations handed down to deathrow defendants, it is clear a guarantee of guilt is impossible. And bear in mind, that reversal of a conviction is usually only possible if there was a trial. Those who enter guilty pleas are often exempt. And 90%+ of defendants enter guilty pleas for a host of reasons. I think Trump's NY judge even commented recently that Cohen entry of a guilty plea wasn't evidence of his guilt (i.e. you might plead guilty and be innocent). Having spent a lot of time in the justice system, it's clear criminal trial courts don't have the resources to ensure fair verdicts regularly, and don't have high-quality staff to run them.
albert_e 2y ago
Currently getting Access Denied error: >> Access Denied You don't have permission to access "http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2024/05/23/retired-detective-we-got-it-wrong-in-robert-robersons-death-penalty-case/ http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2024/05/23/reti..." on this server. Reference #18.2d503617.1716531531.49adf https://errors.edgesuite.net/18.2d503617.1716531531.49adf https://errors.edgesuite.net/18.2d503617.1716531531.49adf
srge 2y ago
Although I'm not an expert on this case, it's wise to remain skeptical when hearing only one party's perspective on a court decision. The science in question might be dubious, but there could be other evidence, or the story might be more complex than it appears. I tend to root for the underdog against an institution, but we've already witnessed significant exaggerations and manipulations from the defense in public cases. The Serial podcast comes to mind, as well as the series Making a Murderer.
- rossant 2y ago
  Anyone can make their own opinion by reading the petition [1] and the opposition to the petition. [2] [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7546/266633/20230511074854156_Roberson%20Cert%20Petition%20Final%20w%20Tables.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7546/266633/202... [2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7546/272085/20230714145417415_Roberson%20BIO%20FINAL%20Tables%20SIGNED.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7546/272085/202...
  - gregw2 2y ago
    Thank you, the second document was a helpful counterbalanced context to the original post and helpful in my assessment whether I should write the Texas governor for clemency. A lot of people have spent a lot of time reviewing this case. It’s not so simple.
- jjulius 2y ago
  >I tend to root for the underdog against an institution, but we've already witnessed significant exaggerations and manipulations from the defense in public cases. The Serial podcast comes to mind, as well as the series Making a Murderer. None of what you're referring to is new at all, and, unless this idea/concept is new to you (which is OK!), shouldn't really cause a shift in worldview. Parties on each side of cases such as these will often exaggerate and attempt to manipulate the court of public opinion, have done so for eons, and will continue to do so.
- gregw2 2y ago
  For this case, I did a quick scan for the “other perspective” and ran across this, for those interested: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/01/11/robert-roberson-texas-death-penalty-shaken-baby/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/01/11/robert-roberson-texa... I have not yet found a link to the 2023 appeals court ruling.
willyt 2y ago
Any parent knows that toddlers are constantly bashing thier heads off things because they’re top heavy and learning to walk they constantly fall over and tumble off things. One of my daughters used to constantly have a lump on her head from smacking it off something. My friends son used to run full tilt into things like brick walls given half a chance, the noise it made was awful. I stand to be corrected on this but if I remember rightly the male scientist who came up with shaken baby syndrome didn’t have kids and hadn’t considered the possibility that these types of injuries could be self inflicted.
- rossant 2y ago
  I don't know if Norman Guthkelch and John Caffey had kids, but Caffey wrote in his 1972 paper: > Rhythmic whiplash habits of the infant himself during the first months of life, such as head-rolling, body-rocking, and head-banging may be traumatically pathogenic to his brain and its veins. More generally, Caffey considered many types of mild shaking to be potentially dangerous, including "toys and recreational contraptions", "playful practices" etc. The notion that shaking had to be "abusive" to be pathogenic came in the 10 years afterwards.
- SkyPuncher 2y ago
  I was this kid. Pain just didn’t really phase me. Or, at least didn’t override my sense of play.
aaomidi 2y ago
Death sentence in this case made literally no sense either. Was this person at risk of going and shaking other babies?
- giantg2 2y ago
  "Justice" is used rather loosely when talking about the "justice system". Many people explicitly leave the "justice" part off for accuracy. It's just a system. Punishment is more likely than actual justice or rehabilitation.
olliej 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
rustcleaner 2y ago
Life sentences should be capped at a decade, and all charges related to an incident must always be concurrently served (discourages charge stacking). Criminal records should also ghost after 10 years from release (like a credit report). The death penalty should be abolished; outside of war the state should not possess the legal ability to execute anybody. Reason being is the state screws up; just because the state can pass a law doesn't mean those it victimizes under said law deserve it. Homosexuality and cannabis are great examples of this dynamic. You cannot give back years taken, you can only make them very wealthy and cost taxpayers for continuing to elect unrepentant jailers. None of these protections should apply to oath-taking elected office holders convicted of treason or other high crimes against the people. Other than for said oath takers: criminal punishment should be made optional, with the other option being expatriation from the nation with the punishment on pause in the event you return. The fact we have a system which acts to make the 'offender' actively miserable, rather than separate the 'offender' but otherwise treat them with dignity, shows we are still a very barbaric society in the West.
- tgv 2y ago
  There are some seriously deranged people out there. You cannot just release them into society. I think you're looking for solutions to problems caused elsewhere.
  - beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - moshun 2y ago
    The most deranged people should be in well regulated mental hospitals, not for profit prisons. It's insane to acknowledge that there are people too maladjusted to operate in society, then send them to the one place where you know they'll get no help.
    - nickff 2y ago
      The vast majority of prisons are run by governments, and even private prisons are regulated. Using hospitals as a substitute for prisons will result in harm to treatable individuals, as well as more stigmatization of mental illness.
fortran77 2y ago
The nurses and doctors who testified in these cases about their "shaken baby syndrome" theories should be sentenced to life in prison
- Ukv 2y ago
  I don't think the solution to excessive sentencing is more excessive sentencing. The individual doctors/nurses presumably had no malicious intent, and it was commonly accepted knowledge within their practice at the time. But, there do seem to be systemic issues with the justice system at play. As an uninformed non-lawyer, this kind of determination seems like it should necessarily be linked back to an independent study (ideally providing recall and precision, to properly update credence of guilt with Bayes' rule rather than a "finger in air" approach) and not just nebulous common knowledge. Then, if future scientific evidence contradicts that study, review of the cases where it was relied upon should be pretty much automatic.
NegativeLatency 2y ago
> Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.
- cesarb 2y ago
  For those who don't know it yet (https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/): that's a quote from The Lord of the Rings. (And IIRC, the character being talked about ends up being very important later on, so it was good that they weren't killed.)
neallindsay 2y ago
The death penalty should be abolished. You don't get sentenced to death for harming others, you get sentenced to death for being unsympathetic to the jury (because of racism or, as in this case, because you don't appear to exhibit the right emotions) and for not having enough money to afford a good lawyer. You can die from being poor in a bunch of different ways in this country, but this is one we could easily eliminate.
- mateus1 2y ago
  Death penalty in the US seems like a remnant of slavery more than anything else. I guess the same could be said for much of the US government (polices, judicial system, etc)
  - Duwensatzaj 2y ago
    Considering the death penalty existed in English common law far before slavery, this is ahistorical.
- doctoboggan 2y ago
  I thought the judge handles sentencing and the jury are fact finders only deciding innocent or guilty. Is that not true for the death penalty?
  - halestock 2y ago
    It depends on the state, but it is common for the jury to vote on the death penalty as well.
  - I_am_uncreative 2y ago
    The death penalty is a question of fact, not of law, according to current SCOTUS precedent.
  - analog31 2y ago
    As I understand it, death penalty cases need a special jury, consisting of people who approve of the death penalty. Also, in practical terms, they need an incompetent defense lawyer.
LeroyRaz 2y ago
I find it strange how being killed when innocent is considered so much worse than being wrongly incarcerated. The state has already taken prime years of life (age 36-56). The potential execution just seems like salt in that wound.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  not much you can do about water that's under the bridge, I think at this point he's like to get to step one "get out of prison because I'm innocent", at that point he can get possible compensation, which is pretty low in texas.
  - hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
    Thoughts and prayers will have to do then I guess.
aamargulies 2y ago
This isn't the first time Texas has done something like this. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/was-an-innocent-man-executed-in-texas https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/was-an-innocent-man-exe...
- larrymcp 2y ago
  That's the case of Cameron Willingham, for which there is an excellent write-up of the details at https://archive.is/HAhJi https://archive.is/HAhJi .
ars 2y ago
If you want to understand more about how the science on Shaken Baby changed, this is a great place to start: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402 That HN post links to https://www.cambridgeblog.org/2023/05/a-journey-into-the-shaken-baby-syndrome-abusive-head-trauma-controversy/ https://www.cambridgeblog.org/2023/05/a-journey-into-the-sha... which explains in detail how the "triad" or symptoms that has been assumed to mean Shaken Baby actually can happen from a variety of other medical causes.
EasyMark 2y ago
This whole article boils down to "it's really stupid to execute people rather than putting them in prison for life". If it's even only "1 person in 1000 is innocent" then I don't see how you can conclude anything else when everything I've read says it's much higher imprisonment of the innocent than 1 in 1000.
- tonetegeatinst 2y ago
  I think one of the biggest barriers to your argument, is that prison is more than just a punishment for breaking the social contract and the law. It is supposed to reform behavior so that they don't just reoffend once released. Unfortunately, ex convicts have very limited employment opportunity and do face prejudice. If someone commits a crime, has served their sentence, then they should have the ability to reenter society and earn a living wage without their past mistakes constant haunting them. If they can't find a job and constantly face discrimination for their past that's just pushing them away and toward the prospect of reoffending. While a lot of people have different stances on drugs or guns, the issue is that what's legal changes over time. Our classification of certain substance or weapons has not been effective, has overall just increased the incarceration rate, and once these people get mistreated because of an old policy or hell even a modern yet useless one, they are more likely to feel like they have less to lose. Well I'm already in jain for X or Y which means its so hard for me to get a job....and so if they decide to turn back to doing those things because they don't see a viable method of reintegration into society and the workforce they might just accept the fact that they can't get rid of they past or escape it and might engage in more risk behavior.

175 points by rossant 2y ago

Texas may well execute soon an innocent man on the false premise of "shaken baby syndrome". [1] He would be the first in US history. This article was written by the police officer who helped send Robert Roberson to the death row in 2003. He changed his mind since then. John Grisham has also written about this case. [2] Please spread the word. As the retired police officer wrote: > It would be a terrible legacy for all of us to be associated with executing an innocent man based on a rush to judgment and bad science. We must prevent Texas from making a tragic, irreversible mistake. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402 [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-may-execute-a-man-based-on-a-scrapped-medical-theory-death-row-autism-prison-b3c44493 https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-may-execute-a-man-based-o... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/24/texas-death-row-robert-roberson-supreme-court-shaken-baby-syndrome https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/24/texas-death-ro... [4] https://eu.statesman.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2024/05/16/texas-law-junk-science-false-trial-execution/73685547007/ https://eu.statesman.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2024/05...

bryanrasmussen 2y ago
I always find the phrasing of these posts weird, as if we have to pretend that Texas has not executed innocent people before and this would be a first. on edit: not just the post, but the articles, we must pretend that of course this would be a first time event that would otherwise sully the fine nature of the criminal justice system with accidentally murdering someone.
- rossant 2y ago
  It would be the first execution of someone accused of SBS, not the first execution of an innocent individual.
  - philipov 2y ago
    The phrasing takes pains to make it sound like the latter rather than the former, unless you're paying attention.
    - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
      How would you phrase it better. Sorry if it sounds confrontational to ask this question, but I can’t think of spot anything out of sorts with this phrasing.
      - snthd 2y ago
        Maybe a semicolon? Not sure any of us know where those are on the keyboard.
    - majormajor 2y ago
      >Texas may well execute soon an innocent man on the false premise of "shaken baby syndrome". [1] He would be the first in US history. This is pretty clear to me. If you wanted to make it sound like you're claiming, you'd phrase it something like "Texas may well execute soon an innocent man, the first in US history, on the false premise of "shaken baby syndrome."" As it is, the first sentence very specifically scopes down this case to "shaken baby syndrome."
      - Retric 2y ago
        I disagree if you wanted the first to be clear: The disproven ‘shaken baby syndrome’ may for the first time result in a man’s execution in Texas. His innocence … The odd wording is specifically there to mislead someone.
        bryanrasmussen 2y ago
        I don't think it's there to mislead someone on purpose, I just think people feel uncomfortable pointing out Texas is killing people that are innocent and thus end up not pointing it out or accidentally making things sound like "oh no, Texas is going to make a mistake they don't normally make!" It is clear that it is meant the shaken baby syndrome is what is the first here, but still it could be taken the other way, and it ends up downplaying how contemptible the State's actions are, even though the poster really wants to highlight that. I guess I would prefer something like - "Texas, continuing its tradition of executing innocent people, will for the first time use the dubious science of Shaken Baby Syndrome as its cause." It's not just the post, everybody does it whenever they say "Texas might execute an innocent person" they ignore that Texas has executed people that were extremely likely to be innocent (so likely that it is reasonable just to describe them that way - in case anyone has problems with my phrasing here)
- rustcleaner 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - afthonos 2y ago
    I’m not sure what definition of “criminal” you’re using to make that assessment. All the ones I know are based on laws, which are enacted by states. You have to accept the very framing you’re decrying to call anything criminal.
    - behringer 2y ago
      Criminals often have a series of codes or personal rules that guide them. It doesn't make them any less criminal.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        It's only criminal because those in charge wrote criminal states declaring those acts as such. There's no universal, fundamental code that defines criminal or right and wrong.
    - immibis 2y ago
      We can start with "killing an innocent person is criminal"...
      - manquer 2y ago
        What has innocent to do with it ? Innocent under whose eyes ? one man’s revolutionary is another man’s terrorist. what morality and code stands the test of time ? actions which was legal and moral say 200 years ago would be illegal and amoral now , who is to say how 200 years in future would see our framework for ethics from now ? Taking any sentient life is a crime against nature and humanity. Societies supporting death penalty are not civilized for the same reasons any cannibals are not. Killing is killing, what difference does it make if you were hungry or felt scared or vengeance or merely sadistic to justify it .
- dustfinger 2y ago
  > It would be a terrible legacy for all of us to be associated with executing an innocent man based on a rush to judgment and bad science. We must prevent Texas from making a tragic, irreversible mistake. I believe that this statement is making specific reference to this particular case. (I miss-read this next part, but will leave my mistake here with this comment. See below conversation. Sorry for the confusion) Earlier in the article it is made very clear that this has not been the only execution of an innocent person wrongly accused of shaken baby syndrome: > According to the National Registry of Exonerations, there have been at least 32 exonerations of those wrongfully convicted under the shaken baby hypothesis.
  - Thorrez 2y ago
    Were any of those 32 people executed?
    - dustfinger 2y ago
      Oh, I completly miss-read the word "Exonerations" as executions. Thank you for correcting me.
- RajT88 2y ago
  From what I understand, Texas executes possibly/probably/definitely innocent people with regularity.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    That seems likes a pretty bold statement to make without backing it up further. To say a state with the death penalty could sometimes get it wrong is one thing, but your phrasing makes it sound more like the state regularly commits murder.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      I suggest taking a look at Radley Balko's writings, for starters.
    - bugglebeetle 2y ago
      Abbot just pardoned an open white supremacist, who publicly expressed his desire to kill BLM protesters, before actually going out and doing it, so your shock at the questioning of how criminal justice is pursued in Texas seems a bit naive.
      - Hnrobert42 2y ago
        This is such an ad hoc argument.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        I wasn't questioning criminal justice in Texas broadly, the topic was innocent people being put to death. > From what I understand, Texas executes possibly/probably/definitely innocent people with regularity. The GP comment seems to imply that Texas is intentionally putting innocent people to death regularly. That had nothing to do with the governor or pardons.
        bugglebeetle 2y ago
        [flagged]
- EasyMark 2y ago
  I think the point is in this case, it can indeed be stopped since executions, once done, can't be undone. It's not an academic topic, it's a life and death topic, a basic morality issue. The current Texas government is quite corrupt, particularly Ken Paxton, the attorney general, but I'm not sure that matters here other than as a tangential point of data.
MisterBastahrd 2y ago
[flagged]
- rustcleaner 2y ago
  [flagged]
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  So if two people have legal guns. They can start shooting at each other. Completely legally because they are both standing their ground? Texas is wild west. Of course they would probably dig that characterization and think nothing is wrong with this situation.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    Shoot before the other guy does. Bonus points if your politics align with the Governor.
    - moshun 2y ago
      Considering who the Governor just pardoned, you don't need the other guy to be armed or threatening, just shoot and you're good.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        I agree that pardon is deplorable, but the other person was armed in that case.
        MisterBastahrd 2y ago
        Yes, but the particulars of the case are that the guy decided to seek out a BLM crowd, drove his car up to a side street where the crowd was, shot into the crowd, and managed to kill a guy with a gun. Even WITH clear motive, his behavior to even get into that situation, eyewitness testimony, and a jury conviction, he was pardoned anyway.
FireBeyond 2y ago
And then you go to Supreme Court, and SCOTUS says: > The Constitution, Scalia wrote, does not prevent the government from executing a person who new evidence indicates might be “actually innocent” — that is, someone with the potential to legally demonstrate they did not commit the crime for which they were convicted. And have locked in on this: > In Shinn v. Ramirez, the court voted 6 to 3 to overrule two lower courts and disregard the innocence claims of Barry Lee Jones, a prisoner on Arizona’s death row. Importantly, the majority did not rule that it found Jones’s innocence claims unpersuasive. Instead, it ruled that the federal courts are barred from even considering them. Thomas wrote the opinion.
- Mathnerd314 2y ago
  https://capitalpunishmentincontext.org/resources/casesummaries/herrera https://capitalpunishmentincontext.org/resources/casesummari... > A proper remedy for claim of actual innocence based on new evidence, which is discovered too late to file a new trial motion, would be not federal habeas relief, but rather to file for executive clemency with the state. https://www.pullanyoung.com/blog/dont-panic-over-shinn-v-ramirez-but-also-make-sure-to-hire-competent-state-habeas-counsel https://www.pullanyoung.com/blog/dont-panic-over-shinn-v-ram... > Shinn does not affect “new factual predicate” claims. If a witness changes their story 5 years after trial, you can still validly raise that claim both as a subsequent state writ and as a 2254 federal petition. Same goes for new scientific evidence, Brady violations, etc. None of those things can be characterized as the defendant's fault for not raising them earlier. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/01/arizona-death-row-supreme-court-shinn-innocence/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/01/arizona-d... > federal courts should show enormous deference to the states, even when federal judges believe a state court is wrong. These decisions seems more about federalism? I mean, if you want to blame someone, blame the involved state for not considering the exculpatory evidence. For example Barry Lee Jones is out now - but it is because of an Arizona judge, not a federal one.
  - burutthrow1234 2y ago
    The Supreme Court is extremely selective about what cases should be deferred to states and which should be the realm of the federal courts. They needed to federally abolish affirmative action in college admissions, but when a person is being put to death unjustly that's a state issue. If a website designer hypothetically refuses to design a website for a gay couple that's a federal issue.
giantg2 2y ago
There are plenty of other people wrongly convicted of shaken baby crimes too. Seems more common than most people think.
- datavirtue 2y ago
  In Ohio, a man was arrested for murder 16 years after being convicted of shaking a baby (and subsequently serving another prison term) when the "baby" died from complications. The "baby" (young adult at passing) was severely disabled their whole life.
anamax 2y ago
Several innocent people die from being imprisoned every day. No one cares, because they die in the prison infirmary, but they're just as dead and they were killed because of their conviction, just like they were executed. (No, I'm not talking about folks on death row, although innocents on death row also die in the infirmary.) Not only do we kill more innocents that way in absolute numbers, it's also greater in percentage numbers. (Death penalty cases get lots of review. We can argue about whether it's enough, but it's far more review than life without parole, not to mention lesser sentences which end up being life.)
- andrewjf 2y ago
  This kind of argument is exhausting. I don't know if there's a name for it or if there's some kind of "razor" for it, like; "Moving in any direction of bettering things is always going to be confronted by someone who thinks it's not good enough and there's some far bigger problem somewhere else so let me distract from the actual good that's trying to be done here" To the actual point - I do think there's a difference between inmates dying in prison for other reasons (and we should reduce those) vs. sentencing someone to execution for a crime they didn't commit.
  - anamax 2y ago
    I didn't say anything about doing less or that your concerns were invalid. My point is that there's more "bang for the buck" wrt saving innocents from being dying due to wrongful "not death penalty" convictions, even if you discount "dying in the infirmary" quite a bit relative to "dying in the chair." I'm not saying that you shouldn't care about the death penalty. My comment is addressed to people who care about dying due to wrongful conviction.
    - 20after4 2y ago
      On top of that, all the people who die in policy custody before they are even convicted of a crime. Or before even being accused of a crime, simply because of trigger happy cops.
    - 2y ago
chmod775 2y ago
> We must prevent Texas from making a tragic, irreversible mistake. Another tragic, irreversible mistake. The man has already been on death row for two decades. Imagine spending 20 years in a cell waiting to be executed because people believe you murdered your own child. Nothing will undo the kind of damage that does to a person, nor will anything make up for the years lost. I'd struggle to come up with something more cruel. Honestly I'd consider it merciful to kill someone immediately rather than putting them through decades of psychological torture. At least that would only be barbaric.

reify 2y ago

[flagged]

stereoabuse 2y ago
Read the article. Robert Roberson has not been executed yet.
denkmoon 2y ago
What would you have them say? Dress it up in flowery language? Grovel? It is plain spoken, and appears to be correct.
- HKH2 2y ago
  In this day and age, an apology is purely an admission of guilt. Everything you do and say will be used against you in a court of public opinion. It is better to say nothing at all and let the 15 minutes of shame pass without stoking the flames.
nolongerthere 2y ago
He literally followed the science, what would you have him do? He did an investigation and believed the experts. We have people every day screaming about how the science dictates this or that (most recently climate science is all the rage). It appeared at the time to be unimpeachably true, based on the best experts of the time. Even in his investigation doctors withheld key evidence which he didn’t learn until later. But really it’s not even up to him, the state/DA chooses who to prosecute not the lead detective or any police officer. The judge decides if the case has merit and ultimately the jury convicts based on the presented arguments. Placing all the blame solely on the lead detective is disingenuous and unfair.

neonate 2y ago

John Grisham's article about this is readable at https://archive.ph/0CmxS https://archive.ph/0CmxS original is https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-may-execute-a-man-based-on-a-scrapped-medical-theory-death-row-autism-prison-b3c44493 https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-may-execute-a-man-based-o...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

WillPostForFood 2y ago

Dr. John Ross, the pediatrician who examined Nikki the day she died, testified that she had bruising on her chin, as well as along her left cheek and jaw. Dr. Ross said she also had a large subdural hematoma, which he described as “bleeding outside the brain, but 3 inside the skull.” He said there was edema on the brain tissue, and that her brain had actually shifted from the right side to the left. He said that, in his opinion, Nikki Courtney said that she once witnessed [Roberson] shake Nikki by the arms in an attempt to make her stop crying. Rachel Cox then testified that [Roberson] had a “bad temper,” and that she had witnessed him shake and spank Nikki when she was crying. Rachel said she had seen this happen about ten times. She also recalled a time that [Roberson] threatened to kill Nikki. This case was reviewed under Texas' Junk Science law. It's a more complicated case than a cheap conviction on bad science. You can read the prosecution's brief. There is ample evidence of terrible behavior. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7546/272085/20230714145417415_Roberson%20BIO%20FINAL%20Tables%20SIGNED.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7546/272085/202...

DaiPlusPlus 2y ago
> There is ample evidence of terrible behavior. (IANAL, etc.) I assume you're referring to the claims made by the prosecution listed in the Introduction of the document? AFAIK, that's not "evidence" of abuse, but what the prosecution is alleging. Big difference. ...but even if that were the case, being a shitty parent - even to the point of physical abuse, doesn't justify the end result here given that the evidence cited in TFA makes a solid argument that the conviction is unsound. Ever seen "12 Angry Men"? If not, you should. ----- (Also, as someone on the spectrum with low-affect, even before reading about this case a few years ago, I was (and still am) terrified of being falsely convicted of something solely on my mannerisms - so I suppose I'm biased towards the defendent here)
- jimbob45 2y ago
  Ever seen "12 Angry Men"? If not, you should. The kid was guilty in that movie though. The only other possible explanation is that he had a brother that no one ever mentions or interrogates with video game-like levels of precognition to know perfectly how to frame his brother. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3597&context=cklawreview https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...

andrewstuart 2y ago

[flagged]

greenyoda 2y ago

Here's what the Innocence Project has to say about this case: What to Know About Robert Roberson on Texas Death Row for a Crime That Never Occurred https://innocenceproject.org/what-to-know-about-robert-roberson-on-texas-death-row-for-a-crime-that-never-occurred/ https://innocenceproject.org/what-to-know-about-robert-rober...

musha68k 2y ago
Not only convicted under the highly controversial shaken baby syndrome theory (not straightforward to prove; hence erronous) and ignoring medical evidence but his undiagnosed autism led to unfair judgments of his behavior... irreversible errors in the US justice system. Maybe it's high time to overthink the death penalty?
- lupusreal 2y ago
  > debunked "shaken baby syndrome" theory Are you telling me that shaking babies doesn't kill them? > undiagnosed autism I think autism mild enough to not be diagnosed cannot possibly excuse somebody for shaking a baby, and as somebody with autism so mild that it went undiagnosed for 30 years I'm personally offended that anybody could believe otherwise.
  - rossant 2y ago
    >> debunked "shaken baby syndrome" theory > Are you telling me that shaking babies doesn't kill them? It sure can, and a number of babies diagnosed with SBS have been abused or killed. However, the way shaking is typically inferred from a small set of supposedly characteristic medical findings (radiological and pathological evidence of blood in the layers surrounding the brain and at the back of the eyes) has a weak scientific evidence based — determining abuse requires a far more sophisticated approach. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      In the case being discussed above, there was also witness testimony saying the accused was seen to shake the baby on several occasions. If that testimony hasn't been recanted (has it?) and we're expected to think that SBS didn't kill the baby then a theory of this man's innocence is in effect a theory about that witness trying to murder him using the legal system, or that shaking the baby on several occasions and the baby dying are entirely unrelated (extremely dubious.) Maybe the state has failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt but unless that witness has recanted I think he's more likely than not to be guilty.

nolongerthere 2y ago

The main lesson here is science changes, no matter how incontrovertible it appears. No matter how many experts corroborate your hypothesis and claims, science is evergreen. Don’t let people tell you “it’s settled” it almost never is, especially when it comes to areas that are highly politicized (like SBS was).

qingcharles 2y ago
And sadly the US justice system isn't designed for post-conviction changes. Typically whatever happened at trial is set in stone, even if it's inherently absurd. Errors of law are easier to get fixed than errors of fact which are normally not touched by appellate courts.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- gregw2 2y ago
  It’s not the US justice system, but Texas has a 2013 law to allow for review when science has changed, and shaken baby syndrome was one of the reason for that law. Still, when this case was reviewed under that law, the apellate court didn’t reverse the judgement. Having read many additional facts of the case, I am not wise enough in 30 minutes to judge and am happy others have taken time to do so (on both sides).
  - qingcharles 2y ago
    You make a good point -- my answer actually lacked nuance. States are slowly allowing for post-conviction review of factual matters. Sadly, these steps usually only start once the regular chain (primarily law-based challenges) of appellate review is complete, so it can be five or ten years before you get to make your case. A lot of this stems from the swathe of exonerations that happened once DNA was introduced and freed a large number of provably innocent people previously found guilty.
rossant 2y ago
Yes, see e.g. https://www.law.ua.edu/resources/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2062/Issue%203/TUERKHEIMER-Science-Dependent_Prosecution.pdf https://www.law.ua.edu/resources/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2062...

Jimmc414 2y ago

https://archive.is/twqkI https://archive.is/twqkI

musha68k 2y ago

Capital punishment is amoral also because it is inherently ignorant.

skirge 2y ago

It's not only US. Many justice systems depend on direct witness or experts and expert who can say anything. Witness can be prosecuted for lying, experts not because they only have opinions.

qingcharles 2y ago
That's why technically both sides should have experts. A lot of trials where experts are called devolve into simply a "battle of the experts" as the evidence is too close or too complicated. Sadly, the prosecution often has an unlimited budget for experts and the defendant often has zero. The judge can rule that the state put up some funds for a defense expert, but this is usually a fraction of the cost that the prosecution spend. Additionally, if you are being defended by a public defender or a cheap defense attorney then they will rarely file a motion for expert fees as they don't have the time to coordinate with an expert and go through the evidence to create a narrative for trial. Furthermore, lawyers are trained in the law, not in things like forensic science, so if your lawyer knows nothing about the techniques being used to convict you then they won't be able to adequately cross-examine the prosecution's expert nor question their own expert (if they have one).
- rossant 2y ago
  In France it's even worse as the State experts are assumed to be Right and there is no intended procedure for the defense to hire their own experts, at least not in a way where both sides would discuss on an equal foot. There's even an obscure article of the law stating that a trial can be adjourned if a witness contradicts a State expert that testified before them.
  - frenchman_in_ny 2y ago
    Though, unlike in the US, the investigators in France are required to seek evidence of both innocence and guilt [0]. So theoretically there's no need for defense experts. [0] https://www.justice.gouv.fr/justice-france/justice-penale/procedure-penale#:~:text=L'enqu%C3%AAte%20permet%20de%20rassembler,la%20personne%20mise%20en%20cause https://www.justice.gouv.fr/justice-france/justice-penale/pr....

DeathArrow 2y ago

[flagged]

qingcharles 2y ago
Can you be a civilized country and still have the death penalty?
- thatwasunusual 2y ago
  IMO, no, because killing someone can't be undone. It's a tragedy when someone innocent is sent to prison. Killing someone - and possibly someone innocent - is just unimaginable.
- lynx23 2y ago
  No, you can't. Thats the biggest flaw with the US pretending to be some kind of father figure for other, supposedly uncivilized countries.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- thefaux 2y ago
  This is a hard question. It gets to questions of morals very quickly and it is very hard to debate people over morals. There is one side that thinks killing is an appropriate punishment for some crimes and another that doesn't. Little constructive debate can happen around this line. It is much like the abortion debate in this way. As a practical matter, I personally believe it is almost impossible to implement a state sanctioned death penalty without executing innocent people. Moreover, life and death decisions are handed to people with political power which automatically corrupts their judgment. I actually can sympathize with some of the positive cases for the death penalty. It has a strong theoretical appeal but I find it impossible to support practically when I think through the implications of any implementation.
  - qingcharles 2y ago
    I agree it's a hard question. The USA could vote out the death penalty at any time, it's not baked into the constitution. But the USA doesn't, so we have to accept the democratic judgment. I do think it's literally impossible to have a death penalty without killing innocents. If you look at the stream of criminal convictions that get reversed by appellate courts on a daily basis, combined with all the exonerations handed down to deathrow defendants, it is clear a guarantee of guilt is impossible. And bear in mind, that reversal of a conviction is usually only possible if there was a trial. Those who enter guilty pleas are often exempt. And 90%+ of defendants enter guilty pleas for a host of reasons. I think Trump's NY judge even commented recently that Cohen entry of a guilty plea wasn't evidence of his guilt (i.e. you might plead guilty and be innocent). Having spent a lot of time in the justice system, it's clear criminal trial courts don't have the resources to ensure fair verdicts regularly, and don't have high-quality staff to run them.

albert_e 2y ago

Currently getting Access Denied error: >> Access Denied You don't have permission to access "http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2024/05/23/retired-detective-we-got-it-wrong-in-robert-robersons-death-penalty-case/ http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2024/05/23/reti..." on this server. Reference #18.2d503617.1716531531.49adf https://errors.edgesuite.net/18.2d503617.1716531531.49adf https://errors.edgesuite.net/18.2d503617.1716531531.49adf

srge 2y ago

Although I'm not an expert on this case, it's wise to remain skeptical when hearing only one party's perspective on a court decision. The science in question might be dubious, but there could be other evidence, or the story might be more complex than it appears. I tend to root for the underdog against an institution, but we've already witnessed significant exaggerations and manipulations from the defense in public cases. The Serial podcast comes to mind, as well as the series Making a Murderer.

rossant 2y ago
Anyone can make their own opinion by reading the petition [1] and the opposition to the petition. [2] [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7546/266633/20230511074854156_Roberson%20Cert%20Petition%20Final%20w%20Tables.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7546/266633/202... [2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7546/272085/20230714145417415_Roberson%20BIO%20FINAL%20Tables%20SIGNED.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-7546/272085/202...
- gregw2 2y ago
  Thank you, the second document was a helpful counterbalanced context to the original post and helpful in my assessment whether I should write the Texas governor for clemency. A lot of people have spent a lot of time reviewing this case. It’s not so simple.
jjulius 2y ago
>I tend to root for the underdog against an institution, but we've already witnessed significant exaggerations and manipulations from the defense in public cases. The Serial podcast comes to mind, as well as the series Making a Murderer. None of what you're referring to is new at all, and, unless this idea/concept is new to you (which is OK!), shouldn't really cause a shift in worldview. Parties on each side of cases such as these will often exaggerate and attempt to manipulate the court of public opinion, have done so for eons, and will continue to do so.
gregw2 2y ago
For this case, I did a quick scan for the “other perspective” and ran across this, for those interested: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/01/11/robert-roberson-texas-death-penalty-shaken-baby/ https://www.texastribune.org/2023/01/11/robert-roberson-texa... I have not yet found a link to the 2023 appeals court ruling.

willyt 2y ago

Any parent knows that toddlers are constantly bashing thier heads off things because they’re top heavy and learning to walk they constantly fall over and tumble off things. One of my daughters used to constantly have a lump on her head from smacking it off something. My friends son used to run full tilt into things like brick walls given half a chance, the noise it made was awful. I stand to be corrected on this but if I remember rightly the male scientist who came up with shaken baby syndrome didn’t have kids and hadn’t considered the possibility that these types of injuries could be self inflicted.

rossant 2y ago
I don't know if Norman Guthkelch and John Caffey had kids, but Caffey wrote in his 1972 paper: > Rhythmic whiplash habits of the infant himself during the first months of life, such as head-rolling, body-rocking, and head-banging may be traumatically pathogenic to his brain and its veins. More generally, Caffey considered many types of mild shaking to be potentially dangerous, including "toys and recreational contraptions", "playful practices" etc. The notion that shaking had to be "abusive" to be pathogenic came in the 10 years afterwards.
SkyPuncher 2y ago
I was this kid. Pain just didn’t really phase me. Or, at least didn’t override my sense of play.

aaomidi 2y ago

Death sentence in this case made literally no sense either. Was this person at risk of going and shaking other babies?

giantg2 2y ago
"Justice" is used rather loosely when talking about the "justice system". Many people explicitly leave the "justice" part off for accuracy. It's just a system. Punishment is more likely than actual justice or rehabilitation.

olliej 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

rustcleaner 2y ago

Life sentences should be capped at a decade, and all charges related to an incident must always be concurrently served (discourages charge stacking). Criminal records should also ghost after 10 years from release (like a credit report). The death penalty should be abolished; outside of war the state should not possess the legal ability to execute anybody. Reason being is the state screws up; just because the state can pass a law doesn't mean those it victimizes under said law deserve it. Homosexuality and cannabis are great examples of this dynamic. You cannot give back years taken, you can only make them very wealthy and cost taxpayers for continuing to elect unrepentant jailers. None of these protections should apply to oath-taking elected office holders convicted of treason or other high crimes against the people. Other than for said oath takers: criminal punishment should be made optional, with the other option being expatriation from the nation with the punishment on pause in the event you return. The fact we have a system which acts to make the 'offender' actively miserable, rather than separate the 'offender' but otherwise treat them with dignity, shows we are still a very barbaric society in the West.

tgv 2y ago
There are some seriously deranged people out there. You cannot just release them into society. I think you're looking for solutions to problems caused elsewhere.
- beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
  [flagged]
- moshun 2y ago
  The most deranged people should be in well regulated mental hospitals, not for profit prisons. It's insane to acknowledge that there are people too maladjusted to operate in society, then send them to the one place where you know they'll get no help.
  - nickff 2y ago
    The vast majority of prisons are run by governments, and even private prisons are regulated. Using hospitals as a substitute for prisons will result in harm to treatable individuals, as well as more stigmatization of mental illness.

fortran77 2y ago

The nurses and doctors who testified in these cases about their "shaken baby syndrome" theories should be sentenced to life in prison

Ukv 2y ago
I don't think the solution to excessive sentencing is more excessive sentencing. The individual doctors/nurses presumably had no malicious intent, and it was commonly accepted knowledge within their practice at the time. But, there do seem to be systemic issues with the justice system at play. As an uninformed non-lawyer, this kind of determination seems like it should necessarily be linked back to an independent study (ideally providing recall and precision, to properly update credence of guilt with Bayes' rule rather than a "finger in air" approach) and not just nebulous common knowledge. Then, if future scientific evidence contradicts that study, review of the cases where it was relied upon should be pretty much automatic.

NegativeLatency 2y ago

> Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.

cesarb 2y ago
For those who don't know it yet (https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/): that's a quote from The Lord of the Rings. (And IIRC, the character being talked about ends up being very important later on, so it was good that they weren't killed.)

neallindsay 2y ago

The death penalty should be abolished. You don't get sentenced to death for harming others, you get sentenced to death for being unsympathetic to the jury (because of racism or, as in this case, because you don't appear to exhibit the right emotions) and for not having enough money to afford a good lawyer. You can die from being poor in a bunch of different ways in this country, but this is one we could easily eliminate.

mateus1 2y ago
Death penalty in the US seems like a remnant of slavery more than anything else. I guess the same could be said for much of the US government (polices, judicial system, etc)
- Duwensatzaj 2y ago
  Considering the death penalty existed in English common law far before slavery, this is ahistorical.
doctoboggan 2y ago
I thought the judge handles sentencing and the jury are fact finders only deciding innocent or guilty. Is that not true for the death penalty?
- halestock 2y ago
  It depends on the state, but it is common for the jury to vote on the death penalty as well.
- I_am_uncreative 2y ago
  The death penalty is a question of fact, not of law, according to current SCOTUS precedent.
- analog31 2y ago
  As I understand it, death penalty cases need a special jury, consisting of people who approve of the death penalty. Also, in practical terms, they need an incompetent defense lawyer.

LeroyRaz 2y ago

I find it strange how being killed when innocent is considered so much worse than being wrongly incarcerated. The state has already taken prime years of life (age 36-56). The potential execution just seems like salt in that wound.

EasyMark 2y ago
not much you can do about water that's under the bridge, I think at this point he's like to get to step one "get out of prison because I'm innocent", at that point he can get possible compensation, which is pretty low in texas.
- hsbauauvhabzb 2y ago
  Thoughts and prayers will have to do then I guess.

aamargulies 2y ago

This isn't the first time Texas has done something like this. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/was-an-innocent-man-executed-in-texas https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/was-an-innocent-man-exe...

larrymcp 2y ago
That's the case of Cameron Willingham, for which there is an excellent write-up of the details at https://archive.is/HAhJi https://archive.is/HAhJi .

ars 2y ago

If you want to understand more about how the science on Shaken Baby changed, this is a great place to start: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402 That HN post links to https://www.cambridgeblog.org/2023/05/a-journey-into-the-shaken-baby-syndrome-abusive-head-trauma-controversy/ https://www.cambridgeblog.org/2023/05/a-journey-into-the-sha... which explains in detail how the "triad" or symptoms that has been assumed to mean Shaken Baby actually can happen from a variety of other medical causes.

EasyMark 2y ago

This whole article boils down to "it's really stupid to execute people rather than putting them in prison for life". If it's even only "1 person in 1000 is innocent" then I don't see how you can conclude anything else when everything I've read says it's much higher imprisonment of the innocent than 1 in 1000.

tonetegeatinst 2y ago
I think one of the biggest barriers to your argument, is that prison is more than just a punishment for breaking the social contract and the law. It is supposed to reform behavior so that they don't just reoffend once released. Unfortunately, ex convicts have very limited employment opportunity and do face prejudice. If someone commits a crime, has served their sentence, then they should have the ability to reenter society and earn a living wage without their past mistakes constant haunting them. If they can't find a job and constantly face discrimination for their past that's just pushing them away and toward the prospect of reoffending. While a lot of people have different stances on drugs or guns, the issue is that what's legal changes over time. Our classification of certain substance or weapons has not been effective, has overall just increased the incarceration rate, and once these people get mistreated because of an old policy or hell even a modern yet useless one, they are more likely to feel like they have less to lose. Well I'm already in jain for X or Y which means its so hard for me to get a job....and so if they decide to turn back to doing those things because they don't see a viable method of reintegration into society and the workforce they might just accept the fact that they can't get rid of they past or escape it and might engage in more risk behavior.