
Questions About Shaken Baby Syndrome - hackuser
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/14/us/shaken-baby-syndrome-a-diagnosis-that-divides-the-medical-world.html
======
ClintEhrlich
The sad truth is that shaken baby syndrome may simply be par for the course
when it comes to modern forensic science. For various reasons, society has
allocated more resources towards testing medicines for erectile dysfunction
than confirming the veracity of tests used to end men's lives!

My involvement with one tragic case has forever marred my perception of both
law enforcement and the District Attorney's office. Before, I always believed
that I would cooperate with detectives if I witnessed a crime. Now, I think I
would keep my mouth shut, because there's too much risk of an idiotic
prosecutor charging you for saying absolutely nothing. At best, your
reputation is ruined; at worst, you spend the rest of your life in prison.

Welcome to America.

~~~
rayiner
The "welcome to America" bit is gratuitous. What do they do in other countries
when they find a baby with "brain swelling, bleeding on the surface of the
brain and bleeding behind the eyes?"
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1382290/At-half-
pa...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1382290/At-half-parents-
tried-shaken-baby-syndrome-wrongly-convicted-expert-warns.html)

Forensic "science" is definitely horseshit though. The National Academy of
Sciences took a look at the field a few years ago and released a report:
[https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf](https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228091.pdf).
If you look past the diplomacy, what you see is barely-concealed horror and
the conclusion that basically only DNA testing is at all "scientific."

~~~
throwaway1967
Not even DNA is safe from lies:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-
fo...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-
hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-
decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html)

> Forensic "science" is definitely horseshit though.

Of course it is! Any adjectivized Science shall be horse shit. There's only
one Science, the one individuals can try and reproduce the findings of others.

Forensic Science, also known as "Good enough for the courts' interests".

EDIT: rayiner:

> How are lay judges going to go and make the determination of when a
> seemingly legitimate "science" is legitimate enough for admissibility in
> court?

Shouldn't they have thought of that before they created the Courts and named
themselves Judges?

How did that happen and no one asked themselves "but what if we're not experts
in a scientific specialty and the decision requires knowing that field?"

It's kind of late to ask this question now. Goes to show what a sham this
circus really is, that they don't have a method to cope with a daily
occurrence.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Shouldn't they have thought of that before they created the Courts and named
> themselves Judges?

Well, (a) that's not how it happened (judges didn't create the courts, and
judges don't name themselves judges), and (b) they do have a method for
dealing with matters requiring expertise.

Now, its a mechanism that is highly susceptible to resource imbalances between
the litigating parties (in which respect it is hardly unique -- lots of things
in the legal system are susceptible to that), and its one that has been very
effectively abused in the case of forensic (particularly, e.g., fiber
analysis) science by the biggest-resource litigant around, the government. But
its not a question that has been ignored and not addressed.

------
graeham
Interesting in such cases that the focus seems to be so much on retribution,
whereas many other proceedings are more on deterrence (steal something = go to
jail) or prevention (murder = locked up to prevent future crimes).

Here, the crime seems to be usually without motive, except perhaps a short-
term rage. Presumably, the accused was unable to stop their actions (no point
in deterrence) and would rarely be in such a position again (compared to
serial criminals or crimes caused by incompetence).

~~~
toothbrush
> _(murder = locked up to prevent future crimes)_

I find it a particular pity that more correctional institutions aren't focused
on exactly that: correction. I have the impression that even the examples you
cite of "other proceedings more on [sic] deterrence .. or prevention" are
rather retribution-based. I would be in favour of less incarceration and more
rehabilitation and reinsertion into society as happy/useful participants.
Aside from a minority of actual sociopaths and/or sadists which might or might
not be a result of nature as opposed to nurture, i believe that most people
would not commit the crimes they commit if they had access to better
welfare/education/neighbourhoods/etc. It seems like much (even violent) crime
is more of a symptom than an end in itself...

But i may be wrong there.

~~~
scrupulusalbion
> I would be in favour of less incarceration and more rehabilitation and
> reinsertion into society as happy/useful participants

While I agree that mere incarceration is often fruitless in terms of helping
the person being incarcerated, one must be careful to not replace prison with
brainwashing, to put it bluntly. That is, rehabilitation might work with
narcotic addictions, but social issues (I am categorizing violence as a social
issue, because it necessarily involves interaction between two or more
persons) revolve around opinions, beliefs, conscious and unconscious
assumptions about others, etc.

I recall movies and TV show episodes revolving around the totalitarian nature
of some criminal justice system that seeks to fix inmates's behavior through
overt (torture) or covert (therapy, interviewing, social engineering, etc.)
means.

> I believe that most people would not commit the crimes they commit if they
> had access to better welfare/education/neighbourhoods/etc.

This is essentially the idea that poverty causes crime, which is a
controversial position. This might be why you have gotten downvoted.

~~~
Lawtonfogle
>While I agree that mere incarceration is often fruitless in terms of helping
the person being incarcerated, one must be careful to not replace prison with
brainwashing, to put it bluntly.

We already do. Some crimes requires an individual to go to therapy and if they
don't meet certain goals, they are held in prison longer (or otherwise not
given certain privileges while in prison). But often those therapist are
working with outdated therapy models and sometimes working on assumptions that
aren't even agreed upon as true.

------
barking
The video is constantly buffering for me, wish it was on youtube

