Shaken baby syndrome is discredited. Why is Robert Roberson still on death row?

Shaken baby syndrome is discredited. Why is Robert Roberson still on death row?

Written by Jeff Kukucka & David Faigman

In a last-ditch effort to save the life of a death row inmate, a bipartisan group of Texas lawmakers did something surprising. A subpoena was issued to Robert Roberson.In 2003, convicted of murdering his daughter based on the now-discredited theory of shaken baby syndrome, he testifies five days ago. rear He was scheduled to be executed, effectively forcing the state to keep him alive.

Roberson is one of many people jailed for injuries to children caused by violent shaking, which prosecutors allege were the cause. But research has revealed that these rulings were deeply flawed, and that dozens of other defendants were wrongly convicted based on this theory. was declared innocent. But Roberson remains on death row, despite politicians, scientists and others speaking out on his behalf, including the lead detective who investigated him and one of the jurors who convicted him. It is. If his execution goes forward, they and many others believe the state of Texas will be killing an innocent man for a “crime” that never happened.

The scientific understanding of shaken baby syndrome has evolved over the past two decades, and the judiciary requires courts to reconsider old convictions in the light of new discoveries. This is especially true for Mr. Roberson, who will be the first person to be executed in the United States for a conviction based on shaken baby syndrome. Regardless of one’s views on the death penalty, the ultimate punishment must be carried out according to the ultimate standard of evidence, and Roberson’s case falls well short of that standard.

About supporting science journalism

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism. Currently subscribing. By subscribing, you help ensure future generations of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas that shape the world today.

The theory behind shaken baby syndrome dates back to the early 1970s. At that time, two medical researchers, Norman Gasquelch and John Caffey, separately published the first scientific papers explaining that: rock the toddler Even if there is no external trauma, it can cause fatal internal injuries. Over time, doctors and law enforcement officials in particular came to widely rely on three symptoms: cerebral hemorrhage, brain swelling, and retinal hemorrhage as conclusive evidence that someone had abused a child by shaking or otherwise abusing the child. . To support this theory, researchers found that children exhibit these symptoms and The manager confessed Shaking the child ostensibly confirmed the triad as a reliable method of diagnosing abuse.

There is no doubt that shaking a child can cause injuries, including the triad of shaken baby syndrome. But the latest research shows that shaking isn’t the problem. only These injuries can also occur due to accidental “falls” (such as falling out of bed) or other medical causes (such as pneumonia, incorrect medication, etc.), all of which were the case for Ms. Roberson’s daughter. Ta. In fact, a 2024 study found that the injuries historically used to diagnose shaking are actually more There is a high possibility of an accident than shaking. That is, modern science understands that the presence of these symptoms does not necessarily mean that the child has been abused, nor does the absence of symptoms mean that the child has not been abused.

Why have clinicians mistakenly believed in these three symptoms for so long?Simply put, we need to correct the misconception. needs a feedback loop In other words often missing In a child abuse investigation. When a doctor diagnoses a living adult and prescribes a treatment, the effectiveness of that treatment provides feedback on the correctness of the diagnosis. If treatment proves ineffective, doctors can learn from this misdiagnosis and adjust future diagnoses accordingly. However, such feedback is not always sufficient. For example, doctors have practiced bloodletting for centuries because it was commonly accepted and seemed to work for some patients, but they believe there are illusory correlations. It was. When it comes to tremors, doctors rarely know if a child is shaking. actually Doctors rarely receive feedback that the triad has led to an incorrect diagnosis because the child is usually dead or unable to clearly explain what happened.

The following is now well known about studies that used confessions from caretakers to prove abuse: Even innocent people sometimes confess Confession for crimes they did not commit not synonymous with truth. Some scholars believe that the unique circumstances that lead to a suspected shakedown (such as the suspect’s emotional state) particularly high risk of false confessions.

To further complicate matters, there are criteria for determining child abuse, including: cognitive biasIn this case, the extraneous information will cause experts to interpret the same injury in different ways, and at least one of them must be wrong. For example, in one study, medical professionals more often judged the same childhood injuries as children. Abuse rather than an accident If a child’s parents are told that they are unmarried or drug users, both are likely to be the same. Roberson’s truth. In another study, these same unrelated factors showed that emergency room physicians Misdiagnosing accidental injuries An astonishing 83% of incidents are treated as abuse.

Even knowing about criminal charges can influence how a doctor evaluates your child’s injuries. In one study, independent experts reviewed medical records From a case where, without their knowledge, a fellow expert testified that the child was shaking. In 94 percent of those cases, independent experts concluded that the child’s “head injury was probably or probably due to non-traumatic causes.”

Autopsy decisions are similarly unreliable. In the 2021 survey, medical examiner’s opinion Whether a child’s death was an accident or a homicide depended largely on the child’s race and who took him to the hospital, even if the child’s injuries and medical history were otherwise identical. Accordingly, famous medical examiner He explained that the manner of death is not a “scientific” determination and “often does not sit well with a court of law.” However, jurors (including those in Roberson’s trial) often hear and rely on such nuanced opinions, leading some scholars to argue that death testimony is should not be tolerated The same is true in U.S. courts, as in nearly every other country.

As more research debunks Shaken Baby Syndrome, legal challenges to convictions related to Shaken Baby Syndrome have also been successful. Another Texas case Just eight days before Roberson’s scheduled execution, a man will be given a new trial because “scientific knowledge has evolved” since his 2004 trial and there is a “high probability of an acquittal” in 2024. was recognized. Even Guskerch – one of the architects of the theory – before his death in 2016.I lamented that His “friendly suggestion to avoid injury to the child became an excuse to imprison innocent parents.” Roberson is one of those innocent parents.

Science is constantly evolving, and even when past mistakes are revealed, we don’t just rest on our laurels. We will take corrective action. Our legal system is no exception. When Robert Roberson was convicted, the triad of trauma was widely accepted as evidence of tremors, but advances in science have made this no longer the case. The due process guarantee of the law must account for such advances, especially when human lives literally depend on it. It is not just unfair for the law to ignore evolving scientific knowledge; It’s a crime.

This is an opinion and analysis article and the views expressed by the author are not necessarily those of the author. scientific american.