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

191–200 of 255 posts

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

#191

Post by mrtksn »

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…

> 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

Unfortunately, for the state, taking innocent lives is just an Oopsie.

I’m not saying this from a cynical political perspective. IMHO, the problem is more about the psychology of people in power. They usually believe that the thing they do is the most important thing in the world and sometimes they may screw up(huge material losses or tragic life losses) but that’s not a big deal. Even there endless desire for destroying privacy in the name of security is rooted in this. You can’t let a murderer go free and if you have to you can kill a few innocent people in the process and that’s not a big deal == you can’t let criminals commit crimes and if the privacy is the casualty that’s not a big deal.

On the series Succession, there was a scene where one of the billionaires skit kills a waiter and the father covers up evidence, and says “no real people involved” to justify his actions. I think this very accurately is straight, the thinking of people in power.

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

#192

Post by dsego »

skotobaza wrote: post #145
dsego wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's retributive justice, it's not a deterrent. To quote a post I recently found resonating with me: "Look, we don’t necessarily hang murderers to deter other people from committing the same offence. We kill them simply because the punishment has to carry the same weight as the offence. The family of the murderer must go through the same anguish and pain that the murder victim’s family went through. The killer has to…

> sending people to jail has never stopped other people from committing the same offences That's a bold claim. I know people who didn't do illegal stuff because they didn't want repercussion that comes with it. So it is a deterrent.

Why is it bold? Prisons are full yet we haven't eradicated crime, lots of people doing illegal stuff.

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

#193

Post by rossant »

lisper wrote: post #190
rossant wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know anything about hypnosis, but I think the comment you replied too made an analogy between the contested science of SBS, and the unreliability of hypnosis induced testimonies. There are many other scientific methods in criminal law that have been criticized for their poor reliability, yet many of them are still routinely used in courts. [1] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/09/20/pcast-r... [2…

Sure, I don't disagree with any of that. But contrary to the claim made in TFA, SBS is not junk science, at least not if you consider the Mayo Clinic to be a reliable source. It's a real thing. What constitutes sufficient evidence to convict someone of it is a different question. You can't just dismiss a claim of SBS a priori as "junk science".

"Junk science" doesn't really capture the nuance associated with this diagnosis.

Although SBS is a highly disputed and contested diagnosis, most medical authorities (Mayo Clinic, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC...) do not recognize any legitimate controversy associated with it. The most notable exception is the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services which published a systematic review in 2016 criticizing the scientific reliability of SBS diagnoses made on the so-called "triad" of subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhage, and encephalopathy [1]. This report itself generated intense debates.

The difficulty here is that definitions are generally vague and change over time. What does "shaken baby syndrome" mean? An abusive gesture, a medical theory, something else? That alone is unclear.

What is being really contested is the idea that you can reliably infer shaking whenever you observe this "triad" of findings in an infant with no history of major trauma, and no other evidence of trauma (no bruises, no fractures, no neck injury...). This idea was universally accepted between the 1980s and the 2000s. But the science has shifted, to such a point that medical authorities no longer officially support this theory — however, diagnoses are still being made by inertia of clinical practice and criminal justice. Yet, authorities still claim there is no controversy on the existence and severity of abusive head injuries, which isn't really the point. More on this issue here [2] and in this paper [3].

[1] https://www.sbu.se/en/publications/sbu-assesses/traumatic-sh...

[2] https://cyrille.rossant.net/introduction-shaken-baby-syndrom...

[3] https://wlr.law.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1263/2020/...

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

#194

Post by adfgiionio »

i80and wrote: post #90
dsego wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's retributive justice, it's not a deterrent. To quote a post I recently found resonating with me: "Look, we don’t necessarily hang murderers to deter other people from committing the same offence. We kill them simply because the punishment has to carry the same weight as the offence. The family of the murderer must go through the same anguish and pain that the murder victim’s family went through. The killer has to…

I genuinely find this point of view viscerally repulsive. Maybe it's a common perspective, but I pray not. It really seems to be at the heart of a lot of issues with legal systems.

Most people, moral or not, would never kill. Most people rarely feel a desire to kill, and most people know they would feel guilty for killing someone. A person's feelings will keep them in line even if their character won't. The police add an extra incentive.

But executions change all that. Whether or not a person supports capital punishment reveals if their morality is a flimsy thing of feelings and self-interest or a thing of principle. It is safe for someone to hate a heinous criminal and wish them ill. There's little fear of guilty feelings or reprisal. The average person will give in, baying for blood purely because they want to see the hated person suffer. A good person will refuse to hurt others no matter how badly they want to.

Capital punishment is a good litmus test. It reveals those who are murderers deep down inside.

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

#195

Post by coldtea »

lisper wrote: post #189
Aeolun wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that you don’t get shaken dead babies without visible external trauma. So saying it’s ‘shaken baby syndrome’ just because there are internal injuries is junk science.

> you don’t get shaken dead babies without visible external trauma. According to the Mayo Clinic you can: "While sometimes there's bruising on the face, you may not see signs of physical injury to the child's outer body."

Mayo Clinic's info is just a popular science article, with very high level information and suggestions.

It doesn't get into the nuance, nor is intended as a validation for facile forensic based witch-hunting.

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

#196

Post by beerandt »

Yoric wrote: post #172
beerandt wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is, but those claiming psedoscience aren't even claiming that the set of symptoms aren't "real", just that they don't deserve their own label because of the implication. "We can't explain this trio of internal head/brain/eye trauma with lack of corresponding external trauma, but don't you dare make the reasonable claim that shaking a baby can/does nominally cause the symptoms we see when a baby is, in fact, shaken…

My understanding is that you got it backwards. As far as I understand, the claim is that internal head/brain/eye trauma can have many causes, so these symptoms do not automatically mean that the baby was necessarily shaken. Sadly, this combination of symptoms have been named "Shaken Baby Syndrome", which means that people naturally assume that the baby has been shaken, which is apparently a crime in Texas. Had this s…

>internal head/brain/eye trauma can have many causes

But almost all have corresponding external trauma.

The cases that don't have matching external trauma narrow it down considerably.

Restrained in a car seat in a rollover wreck? Maybe.

Rolled out of her bed? Not really plausible. But might seem like a good excuse for someone looking to cover up abuse.

Sort of agree with it being scary that a diagnosis implies a crime, but this is a case where the girl died from bad parenting, whether you call it SBS or not.

Hell, even his excuses are giving a 2-year old too many opiates and letting her sleep somewhere she could fall from while sick. Plus lying about the pneumonia, which wasn't present on autopsy.

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

#197

Post by beerandt »

Aeolun wrote: post #165
lisper wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I am very confused here. The comment I was responding to said: > to make that bullshit even worse, Texas continued to use hypnosis induced testimony until 2021. That is a sentiment with which I sympathize. But then... > It makes me wonder when the last death penalty sentence for "shaken baby syndrome" was in Texas. This I don't get. Shaken baby syndrome is a real thing, and it seems to me that if someone shake…

I think the point is that you don’t get shaken dead babies without visible external trauma. So saying it’s ‘shaken baby syndrome’ just because there are internal injuries is junk science.

Actually opposite.

Many forms of trauma can cause these injuries (especially 'trio'), but alone and without matching external trauma, shaking becomes the most likely cause.

Which isn't to say that shaking couldn't also cause some external trauma.

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

#198

Post by adfgiionio »

hollerith wrote: post #185
isleyaardvark wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still shocked when people suggest making people get punished for crimes committed by members of their family. It's indefensible and absurd.

Are any of the people suggesting that American? That would surprise me!

[flagged]

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

#199

Post by abduhl »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #183
vorpalhex wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re-read (b)(2). You can't testify that a defendent was "a jealous man" or "of unsavory character". You can testify that you saw him shake an infant angrily until she passed out.

The way I understand it, the testimony that the defendant shook one or more infants angrily onbdifferent occasions would be, according to (b)(1) "Evidence of [an] other crime, wrong, or act, which is not admissible to prove [...] that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character. In other words, you can't argue that given there is evidence that the defendant shook babies in anger before,…

You don’t see how someone’s history of shaking a baby could bear on whether this separate and specific alleged infant-shaking event wasn’t an accident or that the person didn’t have the intent, preparation, and knowledge to shake a baby? I agree that this evidence implicates rule 404’s bar, but “argue why 404’s exception applies” is a standard law school final exam question.

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

#200

Post by philjohn »

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…

Listen to the Podcast "Forensics on Trial" - bullet striation analysis, bitemark analysis - so much of it is junk pseudoscience with zero backing.
Post reply on HN