Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Dr. John Plunkett RIP - He Told the Truth

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

Snotnose writes:

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This discussion has been archived.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.
Dr. John Plunkett RIP - He Told the Truth | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 51 comments | Search Discussion
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, @04:00PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @04:00PM (#665983)

    Sorry for the rambling mess again, it's a bad habbit.

    My main points are that:

    • the assumptions arguments make need to be clearly stated
    • love isn't an argument, even though it's a pleasant sounding cliche
    • circle jerking is an actively harmful hobby
    • the people told to ``fuck off if it isn't obvious'' are the most important audience you could have had

    The general aggressive tone wasn't intended, but using 'one' instead of 'you', while solving a good chunk the problem, sounds pretentious. It's more directed at the world, than at your comment.
    If I'm unclear, it's probably because I don't really know what I think about this yet, and am just starting to properly consider it after years of eyerolling and ignoring daft not-arguments.

  • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday April 12 2018, @08:50PM (2 children)

    by LoRdTAW (3755) on Thursday April 12 2018, @08:50PM (#666150) Journal

    How about this argument: why do you care about gay marriage? Why do you feel the need to argue about how others should live their lives? Do you have so much time of your hands that you have nothing better to think about than gay people marrying?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13 2018, @03:23PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13 2018, @03:23PM (#666493)

      I'm pissed about people making shitty arguments for it which only hiders its acceptance by spreading the notion that those are among the best arguments there are. Literally nothing I've posted should have given you the impression I oppose gay marriage.

      It so happens I oppose all marriage-as-a-legal-thing on the grounds the state can fuck off regulating relationships, but so long as marriage-as-a-legal-thing exists it ought permit any combination of mutually consenting partners in any number.

      I already agree its fine

      I guess I should have picked one ridiculous argument from the left and one from the right to avoid people thinking a post about poor arguments was a post about conclusions I disagree with. I'm far more irritated by poor arguments for positions I agree with though, because those who disagree will come away thinking that's among the best arguments we have to offer, and correctly conclude that their position is the best supported by the arguments they're aware of. A kind of "If you want to harm your opponent, spread specious propaganda in their name and then debunk it for easy converts." sentiment, but without implying such sophistry is acceptable.

      A good argument in favor of many LGBT issues* is "It violates nobodies rights." And that suffices for a liberal† who doesn't have an unusual idea of what rights people have. As for arguing with a non-liberal, the emphasis should probably be on liberalism vs whatever-they-are rather than the flavor-of-the-week political issue because even if you win, you have to do it over again pro cetera. It might seem careless to argue what seems impossible to change at the expense of a real issue that impacts people, but permitting a large non-liberal faction to form will fuck you far harder long term.

      • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday April 13 2018, @06:51PM

        by LoRdTAW (3755) on Friday April 13 2018, @06:51PM (#666589) Journal

        Your incoherent, rant like post didn't help at all. So the fucking idiot is you. Stop drinking, get your head strait, and try again.