Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday April 11 2018, @11:04PM   Printer-friendly
from the different-kind-of-courage dept.

Dr. John Plunkett died this week. He spent nearly 20 years arguing in court against bad forensic science, for which he was maliciously prosecuted and received false ethics complaints. Through his efforts, 300 innocent people were exonerated. (This sentence from fark.com)

Like a lot of other doctors, child welfare advocates and forensic specialists, John Plunkett at first bought into the theory of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). It's a convenient diagnosis for prosecutors, in that it provides a cause of death (violent shaking), a culprit (whoever was last with the child before death) and even intent (prosecutors often argue that the violent, extended shaking establishes mens rea.) But in the late 1990s, Plunkett — a forensic pathologist in Minnesota — began to have doubts about the diagnosis. The same year his study was published, Plunkett testified in the trial of Lisa Stickney, a licensed day care worker in Oregon. Thanks in large part to Plunkett's testimony, Stickney was acquitted. District Attorney Michael Dugan responded with something unprecedented — it criminally charged an expert witness over testimony he had given in court. Today, the scientific consensus on SBS has since shifted significantly in Plunkett's direction.

[...] According to the National Registry of Exonerations, 16 SBS convictions have been overturned. Plunkett's obituary puts the figure at 300, and claims that he participated in 50 of those cases. I'm not sure of the source for that figure, and it's the first I've seen of it. But whatever the number, Plunkett deserves credit for being among the first to sound the alarm about wrongful SBS convictions. His study was the first step toward those exonerations.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @09:00AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @09:00AM (#665807)

    Examples of this specious shit is the LGBT "love wins" propaganda which argues it's morally OK because they are in love. Fuck's sake, if that was your actual argument you have to then accept pedophilic/abusive/&c relations which involve mutual love.

    Nigga, you outta yo fuckin mind (that's how you use slang properly). Are you honestly looking at the phrase that literally? It's pretty much implied that when we talk about marriage, were talking about marriage between consenting adults. This isn't about child brides, or whatever fringe case or fucked up state law people dig up to use as flimsy evidence against gay marriage.

    You were not paying attention. He or she is not protesting the issue, but the argumentation.