"The scientific community’s reevaluation of expert evidence is not limited to these types of forensic analysis. For example, there is now significant doubt in the medical community over the validity of “Shaken Baby Syndrome,” or SBS, an expert diagnosis that formed the basis for convicting caregivers of murder when babies died suddenly under their care. See, e.g., Cavazos v. Smith, 565 U. S. 1, 13 (2011) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (collecting studies questioning the validity of SBS in one such case). The National Registry of Exonerations includes over 30 cases where people convicted of murder, manslaughter, or child abuse based partially on evidence of SBS were later exonerated. See https://www.law.umich.edu/ special/exoneration/Pages/detaillist.aspx."
> For example, there is now significant doubt in the medical community over the validity of “Shaken Baby Syndrome,” or SBS
There's not much doubt anywhere that shaking babies causes head trauma and can even kill the baby. The problem comes from concluding that every baby with head trauma/brain swelling/subdural hematomas must have been the result of frustrated parents/caregivers who shook the baby. Doctors have been way too quick to jump to Shaken Baby Syndrome and innocent people suffer for it.
You'd think that Sotomayor would be more careful about wording. I'd just hate for someone to read a sentence like "there is now significant doubt in the medical community over the validity of “Shaken Baby Syndrome,” and think they can shake their newborn or that we should stop warning new parents about the dangers of taking their frustrations out on an incessantly screaming/crying kid that way.
This is due to confusion about the terminology "Shaken Baby Syndrome".
On the one hand, it's a violent gesture causing neurological damage in babies.
On the other hand, it's a medical hypothesis according to which, as you say, "every baby with head trauma/brain swelling/subdural hematomas must have been the result of frustrated parents/caregivers who shook the baby".
The existence of the gesture and its nefarious nature are not under question. The medical hypothesis is.
Norman Guthkelch, who first hypothesized a causal link between shaking and this particular set of medical findings, later recommended to move away from this term and to use "retino-dural hemorrhage of infancy" instead. This latter term refers to this set of findings without presuming we already know what caused it.
Of course, as you say too, we should absolutely continue "warning new parents about the dangers of taking their frustrations out on an incessantly screaming/crying kid".
This sad situation is no doubt caused by the fact that there is a lot of money to be made in convicting, lawyering and incarcerating people. It's a big industry with lots of lobbyists.
"The scientific community’s reevaluation of expert evidence is not limited to these types of forensic analysis. For example, there is now significant doubt in the medical community over the validity of “Shaken Baby Syndrome,” or SBS, an expert diagnosis that formed the basis for convicting caregivers of murder when babies died suddenly under their care. See, e.g., Cavazos v. Smith, 565 U. S. 1, 13 (2011) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (collecting studies questioning the validity of SBS in one such case). The National Registry of Exonerations includes over 30 cases where people convicted of murder, manslaughter, or child abuse based partially on evidence of SBS were later exonerated. See https://www.law.umich.edu/ special/exoneration/Pages/detaillist.aspx."
See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37650402