Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 255 posts

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#31

Post by gus_massa »

jdechko wrote: post #10
GlumWoodpecker wrote: post #5

Powerful article. What strikes me as a layman (non-lawyer, non-law enforcement), is how prevalent these methods of forensic science have become, without any solid scientific basis backing them up - such as peer reviewed studies with quantifiable evidence. You'd think that in order for the state to take the life of a human being, you'd need to prove it using means that are more thoroughly vetted than "[one doctor] who…

I’m sure the dozens of TV shows don’t help this either. Law and Order is never wrong and their science and methods are flawless. Obviously I’m being sarcastic, but I think it clouds the jury’s thought process

The original Law and Order was good, not perfect, but quite good. They tried to follow the procedures and most of the proof were real. Each story was original. (IIRC. IANAL. And perhaps a few more disclaimers.)

The spin-offs are bad. The suspects are interrogated until they confess, and nobody cares if they have no lawyer or they use dubios evidence.

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#32

Post by vorpalhex »

jncfhnb wrote: post #15

The most bonkers thing here to me is giving a man a death sentence because of a believed shaken baby death that he promptly took to the hospital.

You realize a lot of abused kids are taken to the hospital by their abuser?

Kids got a broken arm or a broken nose from being slapped around, abuser can't hide it forever. Eventually kids gotta go to school or cops are going to do a welfare check. Same thing if kid disappears off the radar.

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#34

Post by dimal »

I’m always confused why conservatives tend to support the death penalty. The conservative ethos is to reduce the power of the state to prevent abuse, but giving the state the right to kill a citizen clearly goes against that. How can you mistrust the state in almost every aspect of society, yet trust it to only kill people that “deserve” it?

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#35

Post by vorpalhex »

GlumWoodpecker wrote: post #5

Powerful article. What strikes me as a layman (non-lawyer, non-law enforcement), is how prevalent these methods of forensic science have become, without any solid scientific basis backing them up - such as peer reviewed studies with quantifiable evidence. You'd think that in order for the state to take the life of a human being, you'd need to prove it using means that are more thoroughly vetted than "[one doctor] who…

SBS is well supported by the medical literature and extensive studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25616019/ (an overview)

This man was not committed to death row because of one doctor. He was found guilty because multiple people in his life testified he had a history of violently shaking and screaming at a child for crying.

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#36

Post by Spivak »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #23

The way death row inmates are treated is arguably a reason to be against death row. There was also a case where a person on death row couldn’t present exculpatory evidence to prove his innocence because his last appeals lawyer didn’t do it. The Supreme Court literally decided you can prove you have evidence that proves your innocence, that you were done dirty by an incompetent lawyer, it doesn’t matter, you should st…

It's so frustrating because in the twisted universe where Thomas lives the ruling makes sense. To him justice is an algorithm that produces an outcome and only needs some minimum threshold of "overall the justice system locks up roughly the people we think it ought to" and all the appeals and after-the-fact proving your innocence gets in the way of the efficiency and to him, the effectiveness, of that algorithm.

And the thing is in a different context we celebrate this logic. When we do elections we don't really care about choosing the best candidate. We just go through the process, fight to protect the sanctity of the process because what's actually important is that people accept the outcome even if it makes so sense. Peaceful transfer of power and finality.

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#37

Post by dbmikus »

dimal wrote: post #34

I’m always confused why conservatives tend to support the death penalty. The conservative ethos is to reduce the power of the state to prevent abuse, but giving the state the right to kill a citizen clearly goes against that. How can you mistrust the state in almost every aspect of society, yet trust it to only kill people that “deserve” it?

The two party system oversimplifies things, so you end up with "small government" and "traditional government" in the same bucket.

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#38

Post by peyton »

dimal wrote: post #34

I’m always confused why conservatives tend to support the death penalty. The conservative ethos is to reduce the power of the state to prevent abuse, but giving the state the right to kill a citizen clearly goes against that. How can you mistrust the state in almost every aspect of society, yet trust it to only kill people that “deserve” it?

I think most people would be in favor of more protections. But even Socrates argued for the death penalty. Upholding the norm of proportionality in Western philosophy isn’t generally seen as abuse.

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#39

Post by lapcat »

dimal wrote: post #34

I’m always confused why conservatives tend to support the death penalty. The conservative ethos is to reduce the power of the state to prevent abuse, but giving the state the right to kill a citizen clearly goes against that. How can you mistrust the state in almost every aspect of society, yet trust it to only kill people that “deserve” it?

> The conservative ethos is to reduce the power of the state to prevent abuse

It's not. Maybe you're thinking of libertarianism? The conservative ethos is to preserve and promote a social hierarchy. This requires both winners and losers.

Re: Texas death row inmate at mercy of supreme court, and junk science

#40

Post by switch007 »

dimal wrote: post #34

I’m always confused why conservatives tend to support the death penalty. The conservative ethos is to reduce the power of the state to prevent abuse, but giving the state the right to kill a citizen clearly goes against that. How can you mistrust the state in almost every aspect of society, yet trust it to only kill people that “deserve” it?

I guess the desire to control others (sorry, "preserve law and order") sometimes overrules the principle of small government.
Post reply on HN