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

51–60 of 255 posts

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

#51

Post by alright2565 »

vorpalhex wrote: post #35
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.

I don't even think it matters if he shook this infant or not.

The doctors failed to diagnose the infant with severe pneumonia and prescribed it medications that are no longer considered safe for children. This seems like plenty of doubt to not convict him.

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

#52

Post by luminouslow »

beerandt wrote: post #47
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…

>you can prove you have evidence that proves your innocence, No. This isn't a case of OJ finding the Real Killers(tm). It wasn't even "new" evidence. >Ramirez appealed to federal court where his federal public defenders uncovered evidence of intellectual disability and extensive childhood abuse that hadn't been presented at his initial trial. The ruling only overturned (the 9th circuit precedent) whether the 'default…

You missed the second part:

>"Jones also appealed to federal court, where federal investigators found evidence suggesting he was innocent. In both cases, ..."

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

#53

Post by d-z-m »

lapcat wrote: post #39
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.

> It's not.

Limiting the power of government is a central idea in conservative thought, especially in America[0].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_Sta...

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

#54

Post by jncfhnb »

flangola7 wrote: post #45
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.

That is in no way evidence against it being murder. Abusers do that kind of thing all the time.

Shaken baby syndrome is very unlikely to be the result of malicious abuse though. It’s almost always a deeply frustrated parent or caregiver who is desperate, trying to assert control over a screaming infant, and does not understand that this could kill them, or at least thinks they will not. It is child abuse, but hardly of the same nature as most people assume with the term.

Death sentence strikes me as an idiotic punishment.

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

#55

Post by jncfhnb »

vorpalhex wrote: post #32
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.

That’s a very different problem from shaken baby syndrome. See adjacent reply.

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

#56

Post by dmoy »

gus_massa wrote: post #31
jdechko wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It was embellished a little, and there were some procedural flaws, but it was an order of magnitude more realistic than subsequent L&O shows.

For the cops, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, the show doesn't give the proper sense of immense caseload. Each episode feels like they're focused 100% on a single thing, when in reality they're probably juggling dozens, and stretched thin.

The cop side of things in L&O is fairly unrealistic, but imo in more minor ways for pacing than anything egregious.

The prosecutors of course don't get called on 4th/5th amendment violations as they normally would, and my memory is the defendant testifies way too frequently (for homicide cases, in that time priod). And it doesn't do a realistic depiction of the rate at which people get completely screwed over by corruption. And it doesn't do a great job pointing out how often prosecutors will take cases prioritized for their own political careers.

I am not a lawyer, and the lawyers I watched L&O with were civil litigators not criminal litigators, so some of my perspective is probably off (though I suspect in ways that are more favorable to the show). Also it was like 25 years ago? Lol

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

#57

Post by lozenge »

Spivak wrote: post #36
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…

It's called "just"ice, not "systemish". Getting the right outcome is meant to be a core goal of the system. Besides, there are many legal reasonings that would allow the process to give the right answer - that innocent people should not be killed. Thomas chose to find a different reasoning instead.

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

#58

Post by lapcat »

d-z-m wrote: post #53
lapcat wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> It's not. Limiting the power of government is a central idea in conservative thought, especially in America[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_Sta...

That's what they may claim, but their actions speak much louder than their words. Just look at what happens whenever they take political power. They profess "local control" when they only have control of the localities; when they achieve power at the state or federal level, they immediately place restrictions on the ability of localities to set their own rules and laws. (I've seen this happen over and over.) And traditionally over the decades, conservatives have been and continue to be the biggest proponents of censorship: in schools, in the media, in businesses, etc.

I think the fairest thing to say, from that Wikipedia article, is this: "Conservatism in the United States is not a single school of thought." "The history of American conservatism has been marked by tensions and competing ideologies".

Limit government interference in the market? Yes.

Defund the police: Hell no.

Defund the military: Mostly no.

Defund the IRS? Hell yes.

Let anyone who wants to marry get married? Let anyone who wants to have an abortion get an abortion? Go burn in hell.

It really varies depending on the issue.

I would claim that these apparent contradictions all make sense if the goal is to preserve and promote a social hierarchy.

One might wonder how Christianity and capitalism are even compatible. Read what Jesus said about money! Sometimes it appears that most contemporary conservative Christians in the US have not read The New Testament at all, and in some other countries, such as in South America, Christian social movements tend to be (more naturally IMO) explicitly anti-capitalist. I have this strong impression that US conservative Christians have come to believe that the so-called Invisible Hand of the market is actually God sending reward and punishment, which is why it's now ok and even praiseworthy to seek after and accumulate wealth.

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

#59

Post by [deleted] »

alright2565 wrote: post #51
vorpalhex wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't even think it matters if he shook this infant or not. The doctors failed to diagnose the infant with severe pneumonia and prescribed it medications that are no longer considered safe for children. This seems like plenty of doubt to not convict him.

[deleted]

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

#60

Post by Mordisquitos »

vorpalhex wrote: post #35
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.

> 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.

IANAL, but wouldn't that be against the rule that character evidence cannot be used by the prosecution (unless in countering character evidence from the defence)?

Specifically, I believe what you describe would be in contravention of the following: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_404

> (a) Character Evidence.

> (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.

> [...]

> b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.

> (1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

> (2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

Post reply on HN