Tell Congress: No More Executions Based on Junk Science

Did the state of Texas execute an innocent man in 2004? And if that's the case, could the same situation be playing out across the country?

The chances are good, considering the total absence of a nationally accepted scientific standard used in forensic criminal investigations. Consider the fact that in 50% of DNA exonerations, poorly executed or unproven forensic science played a role in the conviction (and that DNA evidence makes up only a small portion of the forensic science used in cases).

To stop future cases like Cameron Todd Willingham's, it's crucial that the U.S. establish an independent national entity with the authority to set standards for forensic science used in criminal cases -- and discontinue the use of unreliable forensic methods. Numerous activists, attorneys and scientific organizations are pushing Congress to establish a federal body that does just that, and anyone who cares about the pursuit of criminal justice reform in our country should do the same.

Please take a moment to sign the petition below, and show your support for an agency that can stop the junk science and poor practices that fuel wrongful convictions.

For those of you who weren't following the case, on February 2, 2004, Willingham was executed by the state of Texas for allegedly starting a fire that killed his three daughters. The case rested on only the shakiest of scientific proof. In fact, several burn marks left at the scene that were used to convict Willingham are commonly known to occur in many fires -- not just ones that are deliberately set.

How did this occur? During Willingham's trial, and throughout the investigation, the arson field had little to no regulation. Investigators had scant formal training and instead learned the ropes (so to speak) from veterans in the field. The fact that those with badges often tend to be skeptical of those with wearing lab coats didn't help any, either.

"Forensic science" has an infallible ring to it. In truth, it's anything but. Apart from arson, many tests -- including DNA analysis, fingerprinting, bite mark evaluation, blood spatter analysis and firearm testing -- are key components of criminal cases, and yet the standards that govern them are nearly nonexistent.

Congress has started to venture into oversight of forensics, by appropriating money to the National Academy of Sciences in 2006 to study the field and present their findings. The final report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, made several recommendations that have yet to be enacted. For example, the report called for an independent forensic agency, as well as the establishment of standardized terminology and procedures. Ultimately, the goal of such recommendations is to elevate the quality of forensic science in crime labs across the country, which in turn ensures the innocent don't get convicted (or executed) based on faulty practices.

As the Willingham case evidences, convictions based on gut feelings and junk science can be deadly -- and dead wrong. The field of science is moving ahead, and those working within the law need to keep up. Urge Congress to establish a national forensics agency today, and please tell your friends to do the same.

Photo Credit: adobemac