4 ms·

Not only convicted under the highly controversial shaken baby syndrome theory (not straightforward to prove; hence erronous) and ignoring medical evidence but h

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.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
      > saying the accused was seen to shake the baby on several occasions. When my son was small, say I don't know, 10 or 11 months, I'd pick him up under his arms, hold him at arm's length, and (gently) shake him while chanting "shake the baby! shake the baby!" and he'd start giggling so uncontrollably he'd be gasping for breath before he stopped. My wife always gave me the stink-eye. I think he still wanted me to do that until he was 3 or 4, he was getting too heavy to be able to do it very well. Think what would have happened if I'd been dumb enough to do it in public.
      - thaumasiotes 2y ago
        My sister's favorite thing as a baby was getting tossed into the air. Holding her head in position was her responsibility.
    - sfink 2y ago
      A witness reported observing the accused shaking the baby, therefore you find it safe enough to assume that the baby was killed by shaking. Safe enough that you would murder him with the legal system? Despite knowing that the baby had severe pneumonia at the time of death, and that many cases of SBS that were "proven" by the standards of the time are known to be incorrect? Dear God, I hope I never get into legal trouble and have you on my "jury of peers". I'd be better off being judged by a panel of... sorry, I can't finish that sentence without venturing into ad hominem territory. Do believe that every Karen has a legitimate beef, then? Every parent who goes out in public and has their child {have a tantrum, demand to have something, make a loud noise} knows that they are being judged, often harshly, by someone with less than a full picture. It is not hard at all to imagine a very concerned and upset observer deciding that what they think they are seeing is in fact what is happening, and it's horrible and must be stopped and they are a noble savior for calling it out. And be full of crap. It happens all the time. It may or may not be what happened here, I don't know enough and I doubt you do either.
  - musha68k 2y ago
    That was the point clearly made in both articles above just to be crystal clear here. Shaking baby syndrome is very real and deadly of course. This is all about the criminal case and the evidence here though. I also edited my comment to make it very clear as I had just been echoing on what was to read there; no room for confusion in these matters. Fully agreed.
  - everforward 2y ago
    As a direct example, note the lack of neck trauma in the indications. You would generally expect neck trauma to be involved in shaking a baby so hard their brain starts to bleed. Their necks lack musculature, and are nearly limp. Their vertebrae are what’s eating the force of their head shaking. There would likely be obvious trauma to the neck if the baby had been shaken.
    - rossant 2y ago
      Absolutely. [1] [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1878875022003977 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S18788...
- A1kmm 2y ago
  I think they are saying that the autism explains his emotional response to the death of his child, not that he shook the baby but the autism 'excuses' it.
  - rossant 2y ago
    Absolutely.
- musha68k 2y ago
  That was neither the point of the posted article, nor the other one shared in comment above. Merely that it's hard to prove and especially so in this case with other medical issues / evidence found. > Robert Roberson’s case is riddled with unscientific evidence, inaccurate and misleading medical testimony, and prejudicial treatment. In 2002, Mr. Roberson’s two-year old, chronically ill daughter, Nikki, was sick with a high fever and suffered a short fall from bed. Hospital staff did not know Mr. > Roberson had autism and judged his response to his daughter’s grave condition as lacking emotion. Mr. Roberson was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to death under the now-discredited “shaken baby syndrome” (SBS) hypothesis. Anyways edited and reworded it just to be crystal clear here and keep closer to how article(s) put it in context of a criminal investigation: > highly controversial shaken baby syndrome theory (not straightforward to prove; hence erronous)
- Davidzheng 2y ago
  I don't think shaking a baby to death should be punished by death, even if it were intentional. Murder of a single individual in general in the US is not usually punished by death even in Texas right?
  - adrianmonk 2y ago
    You're right that there are qualifiers. Multiple murders is one of them, but there are others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Texas#Capital_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Texas#Ca... In this case, it's presumably because the (supposed) murder victim was under 15.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      The general scheme doesn't make a lot of sense; there is no deterrent value in punishing someone for killing their own child. The punishment is that their child dies; nothing you can do will compare to that.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  I don’t think that the autism had anything to do with the crime, itself. It had everything to do with how he was perceived by the cops. Many cops tend to rely on getting a “feel” for the suspect. High-functioning autistic folks often have “resting bitch face.” They don’t come across as “likable,” and people can “get their back up” over it. I’m a bit “on the spectrum,” and, as anyone in my shoes can tell you, we’re bully magnets. My grade school days were absolute hell. I got the shit kicked out of me, on a regular basis, for no other reason, than “I don’t like the way you’re looking at me!”. I spent many years, training my “resting face” to be fairly open and friendly. People seem to think I look like an idiot, but that’s OK, because they also tend to underestimate me. At least, they don’t think I’m being hostile.
petsfed 2y ago
I have what I believe to be an adequate criteria for inflicting the death penalty: 1. A person has to commit and be convicted of, and sentenced for a (potentially) capital crime. 2. That person has to escape from their final prison. 3. That person must then commit, and be convicted of another capital crime (probably with some mitigating circumstances, like murders that are arguably part of the escape and evasion don't qualify for the death penalty, but escaping, then going out of your way to murder a civilian do). For most bad crimes, life without parole is more than adequate. And if you escape and dedicate yourself to keeping your nose clean, then the worst you should face is an extended sentence. The death penalty should be reserved for people who pose such a proven, dire risk to society that the goal of the punishment is risk mitigation for society, not justice. Ted Bundy is the best real-world example I can think of.
- saulpw 2y ago
  That set of criteria makes sense to me! Also, another case in which the death penalty could be warranted: The person has confessed to the crime, does not recant their confession, and accepts (or even desires) the death penalty in lieu of lifetime imprisonment. (Yes, there are cases like this.) Of course, this reads a bit more like suicide, and may not be necessary if we had appropriate "right-to-die" provisions in general (such that they also applied to prisoners). Maybe we should just give all such prisoners access to a seppuku knife once a year.
  - klyrs 2y ago
    > Maybe we should just give all such prisoners access to a seppuku knife once a year. Honestly, I don't understand the desire to make the death additionally torturous. If we must kill, just give people a gram of fentanyl. They'll enjoy the last few moments of their life, a grace that's traditionally afforded in the form of a last meal, and simply forget to breathe.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  > 2. That person has to escape from their final prison. Tangentially, in some Scandinavian (I believe?) countries, escaping from prison is not a punishable offense. To be clear, you will be looked for, and taken back to prison when found, but their legal system has ruled that the craving for freedom is a natural human urge, and that it's punishing human behavior to punish escapees for escaping.
Hnrobert42 2y ago
rethink (just trying to help in case you are not a native English speaker)
- musha68k 2y ago
  thanks, a slip of Denglish indeed ("überdenken")
xyst 2y ago
this is tx. it would take a force majeure to abolish capital punishment/death row (ie, changes at tx house, senate, and leadership)

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.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    > saying the accused was seen to shake the baby on several occasions. When my son was small, say I don't know, 10 or 11 months, I'd pick him up under his arms, hold him at arm's length, and (gently) shake him while chanting "shake the baby! shake the baby!" and he'd start giggling so uncontrollably he'd be gasping for breath before he stopped. My wife always gave me the stink-eye. I think he still wanted me to do that until he was 3 or 4, he was getting too heavy to be able to do it very well. Think what would have happened if I'd been dumb enough to do it in public.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      My sister's favorite thing as a baby was getting tossed into the air. Holding her head in position was her responsibility.
  - sfink 2y ago
    A witness reported observing the accused shaking the baby, therefore you find it safe enough to assume that the baby was killed by shaking. Safe enough that you would murder him with the legal system? Despite knowing that the baby had severe pneumonia at the time of death, and that many cases of SBS that were "proven" by the standards of the time are known to be incorrect? Dear God, I hope I never get into legal trouble and have you on my "jury of peers". I'd be better off being judged by a panel of... sorry, I can't finish that sentence without venturing into ad hominem territory. Do believe that every Karen has a legitimate beef, then? Every parent who goes out in public and has their child {have a tantrum, demand to have something, make a loud noise} knows that they are being judged, often harshly, by someone with less than a full picture. It is not hard at all to imagine a very concerned and upset observer deciding that what they think they are seeing is in fact what is happening, and it's horrible and must be stopped and they are a noble savior for calling it out. And be full of crap. It happens all the time. It may or may not be what happened here, I don't know enough and I doubt you do either.
- musha68k 2y ago
  That was the point clearly made in both articles above just to be crystal clear here. Shaking baby syndrome is very real and deadly of course. This is all about the criminal case and the evidence here though. I also edited my comment to make it very clear as I had just been echoing on what was to read there; no room for confusion in these matters. Fully agreed.
- everforward 2y ago
  As a direct example, note the lack of neck trauma in the indications. You would generally expect neck trauma to be involved in shaking a baby so hard their brain starts to bleed. Their necks lack musculature, and are nearly limp. Their vertebrae are what’s eating the force of their head shaking. There would likely be obvious trauma to the neck if the baby had been shaken.
  - rossant 2y ago
    Absolutely. [1] [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1878875022003977 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S18788...
A1kmm 2y ago
I think they are saying that the autism explains his emotional response to the death of his child, not that he shook the baby but the autism 'excuses' it.
- rossant 2y ago
  Absolutely.
musha68k 2y ago
That was neither the point of the posted article, nor the other one shared in comment above. Merely that it's hard to prove and especially so in this case with other medical issues / evidence found. > Robert Roberson’s case is riddled with unscientific evidence, inaccurate and misleading medical testimony, and prejudicial treatment. In 2002, Mr. Roberson’s two-year old, chronically ill daughter, Nikki, was sick with a high fever and suffered a short fall from bed. Hospital staff did not know Mr. > Roberson had autism and judged his response to his daughter’s grave condition as lacking emotion. Mr. Roberson was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to death under the now-discredited “shaken baby syndrome” (SBS) hypothesis. Anyways edited and reworded it just to be crystal clear here and keep closer to how article(s) put it in context of a criminal investigation: > highly controversial shaken baby syndrome theory (not straightforward to prove; hence erronous)
Davidzheng 2y ago
I don't think shaking a baby to death should be punished by death, even if it were intentional. Murder of a single individual in general in the US is not usually punished by death even in Texas right?
- adrianmonk 2y ago
  You're right that there are qualifiers. Multiple murders is one of them, but there are others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Texas#Capital_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Texas#Ca... In this case, it's presumably because the (supposed) murder victim was under 15.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    The general scheme doesn't make a lot of sense; there is no deterrent value in punishing someone for killing their own child. The punishment is that their child dies; nothing you can do will compare to that.
ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
I don’t think that the autism had anything to do with the crime, itself. It had everything to do with how he was perceived by the cops. Many cops tend to rely on getting a “feel” for the suspect. High-functioning autistic folks often have “resting bitch face.” They don’t come across as “likable,” and people can “get their back up” over it. I’m a bit “on the spectrum,” and, as anyone in my shoes can tell you, we’re bully magnets. My grade school days were absolute hell. I got the shit kicked out of me, on a regular basis, for no other reason, than “I don’t like the way you’re looking at me!”. I spent many years, training my “resting face” to be fairly open and friendly. People seem to think I look like an idiot, but that’s OK, because they also tend to underestimate me. At least, they don’t think I’m being hostile.

petsfed 2y ago

I have what I believe to be an adequate criteria for inflicting the death penalty: 1. A person has to commit and be convicted of, and sentenced for a (potentially) capital crime. 2. That person has to escape from their final prison. 3. That person must then commit, and be convicted of another capital crime (probably with some mitigating circumstances, like murders that are arguably part of the escape and evasion don't qualify for the death penalty, but escaping, then going out of your way to murder a civilian do). For most bad crimes, life without parole is more than adequate. And if you escape and dedicate yourself to keeping your nose clean, then the worst you should face is an extended sentence. The death penalty should be reserved for people who pose such a proven, dire risk to society that the goal of the punishment is risk mitigation for society, not justice. Ted Bundy is the best real-world example I can think of.

saulpw 2y ago
That set of criteria makes sense to me! Also, another case in which the death penalty could be warranted: The person has confessed to the crime, does not recant their confession, and accepts (or even desires) the death penalty in lieu of lifetime imprisonment. (Yes, there are cases like this.) Of course, this reads a bit more like suicide, and may not be necessary if we had appropriate "right-to-die" provisions in general (such that they also applied to prisoners). Maybe we should just give all such prisoners access to a seppuku knife once a year.
- klyrs 2y ago
  > Maybe we should just give all such prisoners access to a seppuku knife once a year. Honestly, I don't understand the desire to make the death additionally torturous. If we must kill, just give people a gram of fentanyl. They'll enjoy the last few moments of their life, a grace that's traditionally afforded in the form of a last meal, and simply forget to breathe.
FireBeyond 2y ago
> 2. That person has to escape from their final prison. Tangentially, in some Scandinavian (I believe?) countries, escaping from prison is not a punishable offense. To be clear, you will be looked for, and taken back to prison when found, but their legal system has ruled that the craving for freedom is a natural human urge, and that it's punishing human behavior to punish escapees for escaping.

Hnrobert42 2y ago

rethink (just trying to help in case you are not a native English speaker)

musha68k 2y ago
thanks, a slip of Denglish indeed ("überdenken")

xyst 2y ago

this is tx. it would take a force majeure to abolish capital punishment/death row (ie, changes at tx house, senate, and leadership)