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
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 scientific topic can be found here, with many references for those interested [3].

[1] https://shakenbaby.science

[2] https://www.cambridgeblog.org/2023/05/a-journey-into-the-sha...

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

>>rossan+WL
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 is making even less sense to me. I must be missing something fundamental here. (Either that or HN has jumped the shark, which I fervently hope is not the case.)

>>lisper+PQ
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] https://innocenceproject.org/misapplication-of-forensic-scie...

[3] https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/the-problem-wi...

>>rossan+pT
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".

>>lisper+T31
"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/...