A Texas prisoner who is facing execution having been sent to death row on the basis of “shaken baby syndrome”, a child abuse theory that has been widely debunked as junk science, has had his petition to the US supreme court denied.
The country’s highest court issued its denial on Monday morning giving no explanation. Robert Roberson, 56, who was sent to death row in 2003 for shaking his two-year-old daughter Nikki to death, had appealed to the justices to take another look at his case focusing on the largely discredited forensic science on which his conviction was secured.
The court’s decision leaves Roberson’s life in jeopardy. Having come within four days of execution in 2016, he has already exhausted appeals through Texas state courts and must now rely on the mercy of the Republican governor Greg Abbott who rarely grants clemency.
“Robert Roberson is an innocent father who has languished on Texas’s death row for 20 years for a crime that never occurred and a conviction based on outdated and now refuted science,” the prisoner’s lawyer, Gretchen Sween, said.
Sween added: “To lose a child is unimaginable. To be falsely convicted of harming that child is the stuff of nightmares.” Nikki died in hospital on 1 February 2002 after she fell into a comatose state in Roberson’s home in Palestine, Texas. Pediatric doctors detected symptoms including brain swelling which at the time were considered to be certain proof of child abuse and violent shaking.
Largely on the basis of that evidence, Roberson was sentenced to death.
In the intervening years, however, new evidence has been uncovered that suggests that not only is Roberson potentially innocent but that the crime for which he was convicted of never took place. Leading scientists have questioned the reliability of shaken baby syndrome, both as a medical diagnosis and as a forensic tool in criminal prosecutions, pointing to more than 80 alternative causes that can explain the symptoms without violence having occurred.
At least 32 people have been exonerated for crimes based on shaken baby syndrome forensics. Last month, an appeals court in New Jersey ruled that the theory was “junk science” and “scientifically unreliable”.
In Nikki’s case, several of the alternative causes that scientists have identified for the symptoms linked to shaken baby syndrome have been found to apply to the toddler. The girl had been ill with a fever of 104.5F (40.3C) shortly before she collapsed, had undiagnosed pneumonia, and had been given medical pills that are no longer considered safe for children as they can be life-threatening.
At his 2003 trial, Roberson was portrayed by prosecutors as a cold and calculating father who displayed no emotion. After his conviction, though, the inmate was diagnosed with autism which put those qualities in a completely different light. …
Abolish the death penalty.
Period.
I dont care how much someone may deserve death for their actions i beleive
- Life imprisoment and loss of liberty is a better punishment as they have to live with their actions and regret for the rest of their miserable lives
- The fact that people can and definately DO get wrongly convicted and the chance of taking someones life away without the slim, but possible, chance of finally being exonorated is horrifying.
\3. A civilised society doesn’t have the right to take a life for any reason other than last-ditch self-defence
\4. A life sentence is cheaper than the death penalty
(The latter point pales in comparison to the previous one imo, but it’s good to stick in there for those who don’t find life so sacrosanct as the rest of us)
(Edit: I don’t know how to make bulletpointed numbers start from not 1 without having backslashes visible)
5. The backslash goes before the dot, not the number.
5\.- Test
7. Thank you
⬆️
Two extremely valid and powerful points made.
deleted by creator
Looks like it’s not even the police’s fault this time, just the court system’s. Since according to the article the detective who led the case against him is now calling for a review of his case in light of new developments. Don’t get me wrong, fuck the police, but when one does something right should they not be encouraged.
that cop cant sleep at night like most crooked folks
Well, the supreme court is filled with republicans who do not have the best track records when it comes to understand (or take seriously) anything related to science. I would not be surprized if some of them believed in creationism, homeopathy, astrology, or similar junk.
much like the clothing brand, and the pizza, “supreme” here is not a mark of quality.
Hey now all pizzas are valid and supreme
My “fat man’s credo” is:
Even shitty pizza is pizza.
LPT: if your a man never be alone with anyone who is not also a man. Anything can be made up or invented against you
Thank you, Vice President Pence!
Straight out of the Surviving in Texas handbook
From the headline, I thought he was put on death row for teaching or otherwise perpetuating junk science. The real story is much more depressing.
It’s a shame he’s in Texas. This case has two things going for it that conservatives absolutely love: junk science and the death penalty.
I need an editor and nominate you – tweaked a word in the headline, and now it makes better sense.
Being able to edit post titles is great
This makes me literally, not figuratively, feel ill. And I feel powerless to help.
Same. That was a tough read.
Wait. Shaken baby syndrome isn’t real?
No, it’s a real thing. The issue here is that the doctors in 2002 believed that the brain swelling that they observed in his child was a clear sign of shaken baby syndrome. However, since then, we’ve learned that the same swelling could be caused by dozens of other things that he would have no culpability for. So with present day understandings, they can’t even say that a crime occurred, let alone that he was guilty of it.
Even if he did, better to lock him up for life than kill him. Not like he is gonna shake a baby in prison.
Texas might be liable to actually send a baby to prison.
Excited diaper delirium, will be the charge.
The reason I disagree with this is that if we truly decide to “lock someone away for life”, it will ultimately cost us, the taxpayers, tons of money as someone is kept fed, educated, healthy, etc. I’m not against any of those things for the average Americans, but if someone is just going to spend the rest of their life in prison, they’re going to spend the rest of their life costing money.
That said, does it make the death penalty the answer? I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not a legal expert, I’m not an expert in anything. What I do know is that there are crimes that most people would probably say they’re okay with the death penalty, and crimes that people say they’re definitely not okay with it. I generally lean more towards the death penalty in some cases, but I also know that they fight and appeal for years and cost even more money. I also know that many innocent people have been put on death row, and that’s not okay. I think Texas uses it a bit liberally and that’s not okay.
Again, I’m not an expert, but “locking him up for life” is just gonna cost more than he may be worth.
It’s just not super black and white, in my opinion. But I’d love to be corrected and hear opposing views.
Equating a human life to a financial cost is such a horrible pov imo, regardless of the crime. We should be better than that as a society
The only part I’d disagree with is the “regardless of the crime” portion, purely because I do believe that there are people who have committed heinous acts and that death was a just punishment for their actions.
However, I do agree that I focused too much on the financial side of things and I definitely don’t want to equate a human life to a financial cost. That job is for the billionaires. My reason for bringing that up was the idea that for those that have committed such heinous crimes, what is the overall cost (not just financial) to keep them stuck in a box for the rest of their lives? Especially for those that never rehabilitate (which the US penal system does a terrible job at anyway).
That said, after reading some of the other comments, especially the one from @StorminNorman, I’ve got some reading to do and may be willing to change my views on this. I’m definitely coming from a more conservative background (grew up very Republican, now I’m not sure where I sit) so there are some views that I have not had changed over the years, if only because I’ve not argued them. This would be one that I never had to argue as, at least in my circles, we never really discussed this view compared to things like gun control, healthcare, climate change, etc.
So I do want to make sure that I’m not just coming across as “we should just kill people for their crimes” because, like I said, I don’t think it’s that black and white and also I wanted to see other views because it’s not one that I’ve had to argue until this point.
Loads of respect for being open minded mate! My reply was a bit blunt and quickly posted, sorry for that. Others were more eloquent than me :)
This is super interesting. Thanks for that! I knew that there were more legal costs but I wasn’t aware that the overall costs were significantly higher. Obviously they want to make sure that someone on death row is guilty which takes more time, evidence, etc, so this does make sense.
I’ll have to continue reading but from a brief overview, this is very interesting. Thanks!
The reason why I say lock someone up for life rather than execute isn’t financial. It’s a matter of justice. New technology and new evidence can emerge that could be exculpatory. We convict innocent people with alarming regularity. Removing the death penalty to an extent prevents people from being killed (an irreversible punishment) rather than being confined. It’s not often a fair trade but I believe you can be compensated for your lost time if you were unjustly imprisoned. Don’t know how you’d compensate someone for killing them if you later find out you got it wrong.
And that’s absolutely a fair point. That’s why I mentioned wrongful convictions in my comment originally. I know there was a story about a guy in Oklahoma who has been on death row for something like 20 years but then evidence came out that he was innocent. I’m not even sure they released him from prison but they finally removed his death sentence.
Horrible situation, and that’s where I think we need reform in general because clearly our justice system has failed us in many ways.
My only counter is for situations like Timothy McVeigh, the home grown terrorist who bombed the Murrah building in OKC and killed 168 people and injured over 600, many of them being children due to parking his truck close to the daycare. It’s reactionary, sure, but a man like that committed an atrocity that was proven, he admitted to it, said he was justified in it, and ultimately was put to death for it. To me, that is justice for his crimes, but it’s also a very extreme example since most people aren’t home grown terrorists.
Again, I’m not saying I’m an expert or that I’m even right, hence why I even commented in the first place because I want other views. I do think that the death penalty should be used extremely rarely if it’s used at all, but I do still feel that there are some crimes in which the penalty is death. How do we ensure that we get it right though? That’s where you have a point and maybe we can’t so we shouldn’t.
I mean, society where I live had to explicitly decide whether it was more important to kill people who have a chance of being innocent or imprison people it thinks are bad for life, and they chose. I voted the other way, but that’s just because I’ve seen juries get it wrong a few too many times (my experience is almost entirely civil, so with that in mind, I’ve seen trials involving the police go the wrong way just because juries are uncomfortable finding against the police rather than that there are deficiencies in the case. It isn’t infuriating at all. The bribes we had to pay just for taking those cases…)
Please try googling the cost difference between the death penalty and lifetime imprisionment next time. No need for you to speculate with zero knowledge or information on something already researched.
The death penalty costs more than life in prison. Your disagreement is null and void
I mean, it’s not as if shaken baby syndrome has been entirely discredited, sadly
Shaking a child can cause the symptoms.
The symptoms can also have other causes.
That means the symptoms being used as a basis of conviction without supporting evidence that the person actually shook the baby is the junk science. Like how a stress detector does measure stress, but it is not a lie detector because stress does not indicate whether someone is lying.
to cause the symptoms by shaking a child, one would have to shake the child extremely violently, with forces comparable to being in a car crash. You really have to have the intent to kill to cause the levels of brain injuries described in SBS.
A lot of these kinds of convictions are because a parent or caretaker admitted to trying to shake the baby to wake it up after it was already unconscious, due to an accident or the baby just falling ill suddenly. in the particular case, the baby slipped from the fathers hands after a bath and hit its head against the toilet. a terrible tragedy, but not murder. and since he was autistic and didn’t display the “proper” emotional response, nurses even went so far as accusing him of sexually assaulting the baby beforehand on no other evidence than the fact they didn’t like the cut of his jib. Now the state will murder him for that
The symptoms can also have other causes.
Sure. But " a child abuse theory that has been widely debunked as junk science" is over-egging the case. Shaken baby syndrome itself does not appear to be junk science. In this case, however it appears that the symptoms observed could quite possibly have other causes. I don;t know enough about the case to judge.
yes, but the “junk science” behind it was that they were throwing anyone who’s child has those symptoms in jail because the law said there couldn’t be any other cause. that’s what’s been thrown out.
Honestly this is why I hate the skeptic community, because it is no longer about removing hobsters from positions of power, but about becoming hucksters declaring anything that you don’t like in as junk science.
Did either of you even read what the person wrote?
They said shaken baby syndrome is real, but you need to be violently shaken. Like a car crash.
They said nothing about SBS being junk science. The junk science is claiming that brain swelling in baby = SBS 100% of the time. That’s the part that was disproven, and junk.
Good god read, people.
Jesus Christ that’s depressing lol. Shaken baby are a real thing though. When parents are exausted and their baby can’t stop crying, that’s something that can happen. If you ever are in this situation, just leave the baby crying and get out of your house. It’s not your fault the baby cry, that’s what they do sometimes and there’s nothing you can do. Hopefully, this man is innocent and won’t die because that would be a real tragedy.
I never understood why they emphasized, over and over, “do not shake the baby” until I had a baby that would not. stop. crying.
Great advice. No baby has ever died to my knowledge from crying too much.
