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

231–240 of 255 posts

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

#231

Post by [deleted] »

lisper wrote: post #148
rossant wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shaking and child abuse are obviously real things. However, the way to diagnose shaken baby syndrome has been the subject of an ongoing scientific controversy for decades. With several colleagues, we have just published a textbook about this sensitive issue [1]. I've also written about how I, as a neuroscience researcher and software engineer, came into this diagnosis [2]. Finally, an introduction to this fascinating…

OK, but that still doesn't explain the connection between SBS and hypnosis (and Texas for that matter). Is there a particular history of using hypnosis to convict innocent people of shaking babies to death in Texas and impose the death penalty on them? Is this common knowledge? The original comment to which I was responding still makes absolutely no sense to me. And getting downvoted because I asked for clarification…

[deleted]

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

#232

Post by jncfhnb »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #214
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.

People who intentionally killed a kid "accidentally" may well promptly go to the ER to establish plausible deniability. There may be no clear, bright line making it super obvious who is merely a dumb schmuck without parenting skills and who is a murderer. We should do a better job of putting out quality parenting info for free and also provide appropriate legal consequences.

SBS is overwhelmingly an accidental harm.

WTF do people imagine when they say “murderer”?

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

#233

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

beerandt wrote: post #128
lisper wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Shaken Baby Syndrome is a real thing. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/shaken-baby-s... [UPDATE] To those of you downvoting me, would you kindly explain why? It seems like a reasonable question to me.

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…

That's not how it goes. Shaking was proposed as an explanation for the triad, not observed as the cause. Then the syndrome was named after the proposed explanation and used as a justification to assume shaking whenever the triad was observed. The Guardian article makes this timeline clear.

Moreover, the Syndrome was used to justify suspicion of deliberate harm in cases where the triad was not observed at all, as I think in Roberson's case, if you read between the lines - no article about the case mentions the triad, only generic injuries that could, allegedly, only be caused by shaking.

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

#234

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

beerandt wrote: post #196
Yoric wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 crim…

>> But might seem like a good excuse for someone looking to cover up abuse.

You have absolutely no way to place any certainty on this "might" at all.

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

#235

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

rossant wrote: post #132
lisper wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Shaken Baby Syndrome is a real thing. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/shaken-baby-s... [UPDATE] To those of you downvoting me, would you kindly explain why? It seems like a reasonable question to me.

Shaking and child abuse are obviously real things. However, the way to diagnose shaken baby syndrome has been the subject of an ongoing scientific controversy for decades. With several colleagues, we have just published a textbook about this sensitive issue [1]. I've also written about how I, as a neuroscience researcher and software engineer, came into this diagnosis [2]. Finally, an introduction to this fascinating…

Hey, can you please post your cambridgeblog.com article on HN?

As you say in your article, there must be hundreds, if not thousands of people in jail for having shaken their babies to death. I can't imagine any harm more horrible that our society can perpetrate than punishing someone for the death of their loved ones when they had nothing to do with it. To think that this is done systematically is inconsolable, insufferable to contemplate.

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

#236

Post by P_I_Staker »

Scarblac wrote: post #92
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…

And that's why it's horrible. The first family is miserable, so in return you make another family miserable as well. Just more misery, not good for anybody. We consider murderers the lowest of the low, therefore we stoop to the same level. That's the thinking? In the US, the same people who think government should not have much power, are against taxes, think that abortion is a kind of murder and should be illegal, t…

Doesn't have to be miserable, in theory, if it's used for serious murders with sexual/aggravating components; it doesn't have to hurt the other family.

What hurt them is the behavior. You really going to feel good about your brother senselessly murdering three people, because "at least he's alive".

The notion of standing behind loved ones, no matter what, is not universal.

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

#237

Post by P_I_Staker »

ajdude wrote: post #21
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…

Reminds me of the case of when a man was wrongfully convicted by expert testimony placing them at the scene by hair microscopy. He spent 30 years in prison: > In Tribble’s case, the FBI agent testified at trial that the hair from the stocking matched Tribble’s “in all microscopic characteristics.” > In closing arguments, federal prosecutor David Stanley went further: “There is one chance, perhaps for all we know, in…

> “There is one chance, perhaps for all we know, in 10 million that it could [be] someone else’s hair.”

This has to be wildly illegal. "perhaps for all we know", followed by a concrete number.

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

#238

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

lisper wrote: post #108
boomboomsubban wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the other death row inmates mentioned in the article as having failed the junk science law, Kosoul Chanthakoummane, was partly convicted for hypnosis induced testimony. The appeal response on calling it junk science was, paraphrased, "hypnosis induced testimony was known to be bogus in ~2005, when your trial was. You should have argued it then." That alone is terrible. But to make that bullshit even worse, Tex…

Why? Shaken Baby Syndrome is a real thing. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/shaken-baby-s... [UPDATE] To those of you downvoting me, would you kindly explain why? It seems like a reasonable question to me.

lisper, it sounds like the only source you've consulted on Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) is the Mayo Clinic website. SBS is a subject with a very long history and surrounded by great controversy [1]. I urge you to look a bit further and make an effort to understand why there is controversy.

For example, the Wikipedia article on SBS has a section on "Legal Issues" that gives some details. Or you may find informative Wikipedia's article about Waney Squier, a doctor who was involved in SBS cases as an expert witness:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waney_Squier

The "Legal Issues" section on the SBS also mentions Waney Squire's case.

____________________

[1] Btw, this is a "controversy" in the sense of often acrimonious debate between experts and not in the sense of the "controversy" that Young Earth Creationists demand be taught in schools. It's a controversy about methodology and medical and science ethics; the kind of thing that gets up some scientists' noses.

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

#239

Post by Scarblac »

P_I_Staker wrote: post #236
Scarblac wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's why it's horrible. The first family is miserable, so in return you make another family miserable as well. Just more misery, not good for anybody. We consider murderers the lowest of the low, therefore we stoop to the same level. That's the thinking? In the US, the same people who think government should not have much power, are against taxes, think that abortion is a kind of murder and should be illegal, t…

Doesn't have to be miserable, in theory, if it's used for serious murders with sexual/aggravating components; it doesn't have to hurt the other family. What hurt them is the behavior. You really going to feel good about your brother senselessly murdering three people, because "at least he's alive". The notion of standing behind loved ones, no matter what, is not universal.

The comment I replied to said: "The family of the murderer must go through the same anguish and pain that the murder victim’s family went through".

So that's the explicit goal.

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

#240

Post by edrxty »

yieldcrv wrote: post #228
edrxty wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you victim blaming...slaves?

that sentence is pretty clear about other tribes choosing to do something to the victim of their actions, so, no. nice try though if it’s really so unclear, to you, each sentence is about a different group comprising large swaths of Americas population.

Oh god you actually mean it. Holy shit...

That's some weapons grade bias.

Post reply on HN