October 26, 2024
5 minutes read
Shaken Baby Syndrome has been discredited. Why is Robert Robertson still on death row?
The case of Roberson, who was convicted of a crime that never occurred, is a prime example of how the American legal system often fails to recognize advances in scientific knowledge.
Innocence Project protesters gathered in the hallway outside the Texas hearing room. Lawmakers issued an unusual final subpoena to save death row inmate Robert Roberson from his scheduled execution.
Bob Daemmrich/Alamy Live News
In a last-ditch effort to save the life of a death row inmate, a bipartisan group of Texas lawmakers just did something amazing. Robert Roberson was summoned.Convicted of murdering his daughter in 2003 based on the now-discredited theory of shaken baby syndrome, he testified before them for five days. ~ after He was scheduled to be executed, effectively forcing the state to keep him alive.
Roberson is one of many people jailed on charges prosecutors say violent shaking resulted in injuries to children. But research has revealed serious flaws in this decision, and dozens of other defendants have been wrongly convicted under this theory. was found not guilty. But Roberson remains on death row, even as politicians, scientists and others, including the lead detective who investigated him and one of the jurors who convicted him, speak out on his behalf. If his execution goes ahead, they and many others believe Texas will kill an innocent man for a “crime” that never happened.
As our scientific understanding of shaken baby syndrome has evolved over the past two decades, the Department of Justice requires courts to reexamine existing convictions in light of new findings. This is especially true in the case of Roberson, who will be the first person executed in the United States for a conviction based on shaken baby syndrome. Whatever your views on the death penalty, the ultimate punishment must be subject to the ultimate standard of proof, and Roberson’s case falls woefully short of that standard.
About science journalism support
If you like this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism. You are subscribing. By purchasing a subscription, you help ensure the future of influential stories about the discoveries and ideas that shape our world today.
The theory of shaken baby syndrome dates back to the early 1970s, when two medical researchers, Norman Guthkelch and John Caffey, separately published the first scientific papers describing: rock a toddler Even if there are no external injuries, it can cause fatal internal injuries. Over time, doctors and law enforcement officials began to widely rely on three symptoms – intracerebral hemorrhage, brain swelling, and retinal hemorrhage – as solid evidence that someone had abused a child with shaking. To support this theory, researchers cited cases where children showed these symptoms. the manager confessed On the surface, this confirms that the triad is a reliable way to diagnose abuse.
There is no doubt that shaking a child can cause injuries, including the big three of shaken baby syndrome. However, according to the latest research, the shaking only How these injuries can be caused: They can be caused by accidental “short circuits” (e.g., falling out of bed) as well as other medical causes (e.g., pneumonia, inappropriate medication), all of which happened to Roberson’s daughter. In fact, a 2024 study found that the injuries historically used to diagnose shaking were actually: more Possible to occur due to an accident Rather than shaking. In short, modern science understands that the presence of these symptoms does not necessarily mean that the child has been abused, and the absence of symptoms does not necessarily mean that the child has not been abused.
Why have clinicians mistrusted these three symptoms for so long? The short answer is to correct a misunderstanding. You need a feedback loop in other words often lacking Child abuse investigation underway. When doctors diagnose living adults and prescribe treatment, the effectiveness of that treatment provides feedback on the accuracy of the diagnosis. If treatment proves ineffective, doctors can learn from these misdiagnoses and adjust future diagnoses accordingly. However, this feedback alone is not always enough. For example, doctors have practiced phlebotomy for centuries, even though it was generally accepted and seemed to be effective for some patients. When it comes to shaking, doctors rarely know whether a child is shaken or not. actually It is shaken because the child is usually dead or unable to clearly explain what happened. Therefore, doctors receive little feedback that the triad leads to incorrect diagnoses.
Based on research that used confessions from caretakers to prove that abuse occurred, it is now well known that: Even innocent people confess sometimes It is possible to confess to a crime you did not commit. not synonymous with truth. Some scholars believe that the unique circumstances (e.g., emotional state of the suspect) of suspected shaking incidents may be The risk of false confessions is particularly high..
A more complex issue is the decision to abuse children. cognitive biasExternal information can cause experts to interpret the same injury in different ways, at least one of which must be incorrect. For example, in one study, medical professionals more often attributed childhood injuries to: Abuse rather than accidents If you are told that your child’s parents are single or drug users – both roberson is true. Another study found that the same external factors caused emergency room doctors to misdiagnosing an accidental injury A whopping 83% of cases are considered abuse.
Just knowing about the alleged crime can affect how a doctor evaluates a child’s injuries. In one study, independent experts Medical records were reviewed. There is also a case where a fellow expert testified that a child was shaken without his or her knowledge. In 94% of those cases, independent experts concluded that the child’s “head injury… had a probable or probably non-traumatic cause.”
Autopsy decisions are also unreliable. In a 2021 study, Coroner’s Opinion Whether a child’s death is an accident or a homicide depends greatly on the child’s race and who brought the child to the hospital, even if the child’s injuries and medical history are the same. In response to this, renowned coroner He explained that manner of death is not a ‘scientific’ determination and is often not appropriate in court. But jurors, including some in the Roberson trial, often hear and trust these weak opinions, which has led some scholars to argue for the death testimony method. should not be allowed This is as true in American courts as it is in almost every other country.
As research exposing shaken baby syndrome has grown, so has the number of successful legal challenges to criminal convictions that depend on it, including: Another Texas Incident Just eight days before Roberson’s scheduled execution, the man was given a new trial because “scientific knowledge has evolved” since his 2004 trial and he is “likely to be acquitted” in 2024. Before his death in 2016, Guthkelch was also one of the founders of the theory—I lamented “His kind offer to avoid hurting children became an excuse to put innocent parents in jail.” Roberson is one of those naive parents.
Science is constantly evolving, and when past mistakes are revealed, we do not simply resign ourselves to them. We take corrective action. Our legal system should be no different. When Robert Roberson was found guilty, the trifecta of injuries was widely accepted as evidence of shaking. But as science advances, this is no longer the case. The law’s guarantees of due process must account for such developments, especially when individual lives literally depend on them. It is not just unfair for the law to ignore evolving scientific knowledge. It’s a crime.
This article is an opinion and analysis piece, and the views expressed by the author or authors do not necessarily reflect those of the author. Scientific American.
