The dangers of imposing the death penalty

Robert Roberson was set to testify on Monday, 22 October 2024 before the Texas House Committee decided against having Mr Roberson via video call at the hearing. It appears that video conference was deemed unsuitable for Mr Roberson to provide his testimony which was influenced by factors such as Mr Roberson having autism, communication challenges as well as spending two decades alone.

Mr Roberson's case is one that raises a number of issues with the death penalty, considering the evidence that was presented at his trial.

The first being it highlights an important legal issue- what involves a fair trial. The case did not present a fair representation of all the evidence and what was relevant. According to one juror that was on the case of Mr Roberson he reports that "nothing else was ever mentioned or presented to the jurors to consider, other than the 'shaken baby syndrome' diagnosis." 

This case raises a critical, perhaps ongoing issue with the medical profession when it comes to the importance of ruling out a differential diagnosis. This case highlights the dangers and risk of categorising symptoms to fit one particular diagnosis or to 'fit the mould' so to speak. Usually, the patient is affected if they are incorrectly diagnosed, however in this case, Mr Roberson was.  When it came to providing evidence on Mr Roberson's daughter, Nikki's cause of death,  a paediatrician gave a testimony who described swelling and haemorrhages in Nikki's brain to support a 'shaken baby syndrome' diagnosis. Swelling and haemorrhaging are also symptoms of head injuries including head trauma.   At the time, evidence which was available and supported this diagnosis, was not shown to the jury.  You can read more about it here.

Mr Roberson's case highlights the dangers of imposing the death penalty particularly when all the evidence has not been provided as well as the risk of imposing such a penalty on a person who is wrongly convicted.