zlacker

>>YeGobl+(OP)
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 still be killed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinn_v._Ramirez

>>Samoye+Eg
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, Texas continued to use hypnosis induced testimony until 2021.

It makes me wonder when the last death penalty sentence for "shaken baby syndrome" was in Texas.

>>boombo+8j
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+cE
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."

>>beeran+7K
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 shakes a baby to death they are guilty of murder (or at least negligent homicide) and should be treated no differently than if their victim had been older. What does it have to do with hypnosis?

>>lisper+DL
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.