Death penalty would be applied much more responsibly if, in case an innocent person got executed, everyone involved in the verdict, police, forensics experts, prosecutors, judge and jurors, would have to be charged of at least manslaughter.<p>Realistically, this would only bring the systematic destruction of any exculpatory evidence.
Also worth noting: in 2009, the Texas Forensic Science Commission was looking into the Willingham case. Two days before the commission was scheduled to hear evidence that could have exonerated Willingham, Gov. Rick Perry ousted the chairman and two members. The hearing was canceled, and the inquiry was effectively shut down. [1]<p>The final report, released a year and a half later, only recommended more training for fire investigators; it did not examine exculpatory evidence, or issue any finding regarding negligence or professional misconduct. [2] Two months after that, Texas AG Greg Abbott issued a ruling prohibiting the commission from investigating evidence from prior to 2005, ensuring that the commission will not examine exculpatory evidence in the future. [3]<p>[1] <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/10/david-grann-a-sudden-dismissal.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/10/david...</a><p>[2] PDF: <a href="http://www.fsc.state.tx.us/documents/FINAL.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.fsc.state.tx.us/documents/FINAL.pdf</a><p>[3] <a href="http://www.texastribune.org/2012/10/24/family-seeks-clear-name-executed/" rel="nofollow">http://www.texastribune.org/2012/10/24/family-seeks-clear-na...</a>
A more in-depth article, which fills in a lot of details: <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all" rel="nofollow">http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_...</a><p>This case seems to hinge mainly on the fact that a lack of a scientific approach to investigating arson, combined with overzealous prosecutors, may have contributed to what the original headline claims.<p>Some key paragraphs (though you should go there and read it yourself):<p>--------<p>"With the naked eye, it is impossible to distinguish between the pour patterns and puddle configurations caused by an accelerant and those caused naturally by post-flashover. The only reliable way to tell the difference is to take samples from the burn patterns and test them in a laboratory for the presence of flammable or combustible liquids."<p>--------<p>"On February 13th, four days before Willingham was scheduled to be executed, he got a call from Reaves, his attorney. Reaves told him that the fifteen members of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, which reviews an application for clemency and had been sent Hurst’s report, had made their decision.<p>“What is it?” Willingham asked.<p>“I’m sorry,” Reaves said. “They denied your petition.”<p>The vote was unanimous. Reaves could not offer an explanation: the board deliberates in secret, and its members are not bound by any specific criteria. <i>The board members did not even have to review Willingham’s materials, and usually don’t debate a case in person; rather, they cast their votes by fax—a process that has become known as “death by fax.”</i> Between 1976 and 2004, when Willingham filed his petition, the State of Texas had approved only one application for clemency from a prisoner on death row. A Texas appellate judge has called the clemency system “a legal fiction.” Reaves said of the board members, “They never asked me to attend a hearing or answer any questions.”"