Source: newrepublic.com 11/26/24
Too many jurisdictions continue to abide by wholly discredited forensic techniques and pseudoscientific nonsense, which are leaving legal mayhem in their wake.
While they remain a singularly popular pop-culture genre, the police and court procedurals that draw the eyes and attention of television viewers on a daily basis have, unfortunately, given most people an idealized view of how our legal system works. This is never more true than in how the public has come to view the role that science and forensic evidence play in criminal proceedings. Judges and juries are supposed to weigh evidence from scientific experts presenting the most current version of the scientific consensus in their areas of expertise. So how do so many people keep going to jail based on junk science?
Part of the blame lies with judicial arrogance. Contrary to our mythology around the judiciary, judges are not objective observers and often struggle to remove personal and societal biases from their analyses of the cases before them. Despite not being scientists, judges, led by the U.S. Supreme Court, have concentrated power in themselves at the expense of reliance on scientific expertise.
Although the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which overturned Chevron deference by courts to agency experts, does not impact courtroom deliberations directly, it provides a glimpse into this all-consuming arrogance of the judiciary—and its misaligned confidence in its ability to discern truth, despite both empirical and anecdotal evidence of its inability to do so effectively. The stakes for criminal defendants could not be higher.
And we are currently in a face-to-face crisis with the high costs of this arrogance. Robert Roberson has been on death row in Texas since 2003 after being found guilty of murdering his 2-year-old daughter via “shaken baby syndrome.” The problem? The entire premise of shaken baby syndrome, or SBS, has been seriously discredited.
Defendants convicted under shaken baby syndrome theories, including Roberson, have been challenging their convictions based on these scientific developments, and some have even been successful. However, despite decades of evidence that SBS cannot be accurately diagnosed as its own disorder or injury, Roberson is set to be the first person in the United States executed because of the mythology that’s been erected around SBS. Even though Roberson has a legitimate claim to make against his conviction, which has earned bipartisan support in Texas and nationwide, the Texas Supreme Court paid all of this no heed, recently clearing the way for Roberson’s execution without the opportunity for a new trial.
Unfortunately, our courts’ willingness to accept lethal junk science is not restricted to SBS. The problem is so widespread that, in recent years, Texas and six other states have passed laws allowing defendants to appeal their convictions on the basis of advancements in science to ensure no one remains in prison over faulty evidence and theories. Nevertheless, some legislators say that the law is not being properly applied in Roberson’s case.
The steadfast unwillingness to reckon with the faulty science that may send a man to his death also flies in the face of what other states have done to curb the destructive effects of junk science. Elsewhere, courts have established higher standards, holding that certain scientific evidence—such as the faulty theories of drug recognition experts—may not be used as evidence. The lack of uniform standards where science is concerned is especially galling. Roberson and others stand to potentially lose their freedoms, livelihoods, and their lives, solely due to a fluke in geography.
I am encouraged by the fact that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor has been critical of junk science and is now encouraging legislators to pass laws that “facilitate review of convictions based on junk science.” I believe doing so could help many people convicted of a sex offense.
Will not happen here where I live in TX. The above mentioned case has been in the news here for weeks with the legislature fighting the courts and the governor over Mr Roberson. Another high profile case in TX a man was sentenced to death on junk science regarding a fire that killed his children. If I correctly remember, a majority of the board of a state commission that oversaw issues that would affect this case stated they believe the man was sentenced on junk science. The governor, Rick Perry (who ran for president) fired the full board of the commission and put cronies who would support the stance of the governor who wanted the man sentenced to death. Rick Perry, the man who executed more people than any other country in the world while he was governor. The current governor who is very cruel emulates Rick Perry.
First thing that comes to mind are the Static-99R and “lie detector” tests. Complete junk science.
Should not just be banning the use of the junk science, but they should be banning the use of those pseudo experts who believe in the junk science as well, a two-for-one reality check when it comes to this cr*p. Not that I’m bitter about the idiot who was involved with my legal situation and was a pseudo expert of nothingness outside of his own brain according to real experts.
Climate Change, and the need, or lack there of, for policy to address is driving this?
Both sides of the Climate Change debate need to define what “Scientific Evidence” can and should be used in State policy and Court decision making.
Climate Change supporters need to establish that only “legitimate Science” can and should be used, and that all “Junk Science” should be rejected. It is their belief that Climate Change science will survive any and all challenges, eventually achieving an “Unquestionable fact” status, while Climate Change Denial science will be declared “junk science”. All that supports is undeniable fact, all that respects is junk science, is the goal. As such, all policies become valid responses to the need to address Climate Change.
Those that oppose Climate Change science want to establish an impossible obstacle course that must be navigated through before any “theory” can be used in decision making. The goal of this is to relegate Climate Change to an “unproven Junk Science theory” forever, thus all decisions that used this “Junk Science theory” must be repealed, and all new policies prohibited.
Nobody in this debate is looking at the registry, however…
If the Pseudoscience behind Universal and Eternal Frightening and High Risk can be considered unquestionably true, how can the science behind Climate Change be denied?
If the science behind Climate Change can be rejected as “Unproven” or even “Junk Science” how can the 🐎💩 used in F&H continue to be considered universally, eternally unquestionably true?