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father who has languished on Texas’s death row for 20 years for a crime that never occurred and a conviction based on outdated and now refuted science,” the prisoner’s lawyer, Gretchen Sween, said.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)
This makes me literally, not figuratively, feel ill. And I feel powerless to help.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
