Columnist Bob Herbert has a must-read piece in today’s edition of the New York Times about what happened when justice failed and an innocent man was put on death row in Texas.

Referencing an article appearing in this week’s New Yorker (which can be read here), Herbert reports that on December 21, 1991, Cameron Todd Willingham was at his home in Corsicana, Texas, asleep. His two-year-old daughter and twin one-year-old daughters were in another room. He awoke when he heard the cries of his oldest child, and he quickly found that their room was being engulfed by fire. Herbert tells us what happened next:

Willingham said he tried to rescue the kids but was driven back by smoke and flames. At one point his hair caught fire. As the heat intensified, the windows of the children’s room exploded and flames leapt out. Willingham, who was 23 at the time, had to be restrained and eventually handcuffed as he tried again to get into the room.

There was no reason to believe at first that the fire was anything other than a horrible accident. But fire investigators, moving slowly through the ruined house, began seeing things (not unlike someone viewing a Rorschach pattern) that they interpreted as evidence of arson.

Even though investigators couldn’t determine any motive for Willingham to kill his own children, nevertheless he was arrested and charged with capital murder. Willingham declined a plea deal that would have spared his life and maintained his innocence for the twelve years that he sat on death row. He was executed on February 17th, 2004.

Herbert points out that in the weeks leading up to Willingham’s execution, a leading chemist and fire expert named Gerald Hurst reviewed the arson investigator’s case against Willingham and knocked down key pieces of evidence. This didn’t persuade the state to spare Willingham’s life. Nevertheless, as part of an official review of the state of Texas’s mishandling of forensic evidence, another fire expert named Craig Beylor reviewed the Willingham case and recently released a report on the evidence that sent Willingham to his death. Herbert writes:

The report is devastating, the kind of disclosure that should send a tremor through one’s conscience. There was absolutely no scientific basis for determining that the fire was arson, said Beyler. No basis at all. He added that the state fire marshal who investigated the case and testified against Willingham “seems to be wholly without any realistic understanding of fires.” He said the marshal’s approach seemed to lack “rational reasoning” and he likened it to the practices “of mystics or psychics.”

It looks like Willingham was completely innocent of murder and the house fire that claimed the lives of his daughters was a tragic accident. His execution by the state of Texas is irreversible. And it was the scientifically unsound testimony of an incompetent fire investigator (along with a jailhouse informant who was later shown to be unreliable) that put Willingham in the death chamber.

Now, there are some obvious lessons to be learned here. First, the justice system absolutely must be adapted to keep up with the latest advances in forensic science, even after a prisoner is convicted. Like any science, forensic criminal investigations are subject to rapid advances, and older techniques may no longer be reliable or represent the best interpretation of the evidence available. With a prisoner sitting on death row for twelve years, it is likely that advances made in forensic science during that period of time may affect his case. And while opponents to this idea will point out that the courts may be tied up reviewing evidence in settled cases, nevertheless, in a case like this, where a man’s life is at stake, the state can do no less. The protection of innocent life is always paramount. If previously heard scientific evidence is called into doubt by new discoveries or advances, then it must be heard again.

Furthermore, proceedings involving forensic evidence must be infused with a healthy sense of skepticism. As Beylor’s report makes clear, there is no guarantee that investigators will use the latest or most credible scientific methods in their investigations. Beylor stated in his report that the lead fire investigator in the Willingham case based many of his conclusions on personal beliefs and that he had no real understanding of fire science. Investigators must testify based on sound science and not just sway the jury by dint of their position of authority.

Finally, Willingham is gone, and although being exonerated post mortem may give some measure of comfort to his family, it will not, of course, bring him back. This is another argument in favor of abolishing the death penalty once and for all. Does anyone believe that the legal system in the U.S. is infallible? If it isn’t, then it was inevitable that at least one innocent person would be put to death. And Willingham was by no means the only person wrongfully convicted of serious crimes in this country. While others may eventually be released from prison, Willingham’s case is emblematic of the inherent danger of implementing death as a punishment. Nothing can be done for him now.

To learn more about taking a stand against the death penalty, I recommend visiting the Death Penalty Information Center, a Washington, DC-based organization dedicated to collecting and disseminating accurate information about how the death penalty is applied in the United States. Once you’ve learned more about the death penalty, including how 135 people have been set free from death rows around the USA since 1973 after being proven innocent, I’ll bet that you’ll turn against this horrific punishment too.