4 ms·

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 b

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.

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.