Robert Roberson’s impending execution, along with the Menendez brothers’ sentences, highlights a critical gap where evolving scientific understanding collides with established legal convictions, raising questions about due process.
Despite the Texas courts’ and the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling, the principles of science evolve. This means that justice previously considered fair may be revealed as unjust in light of new findings.
The inability to reopen cases like those of Roberson and the Menendez brothers signals a profound failure of the law to align with scientific advancements, threatening constitutional guarantees.
The historical parallels provide many examples where scientific theories—once seen as accurate—were later disproven. Cases built upon such faulty foundations raise serious concerns about our judicial system.
Collection
[
|
...
]