Executing an Innocent Man " Death row” , this quotation remind me of a story that happened in Texas in 1991 for Todd Willingham, as detailed by the Travis County District Court of Texas. The latter was executed as he was found guilty of the murder of this three children in a fire that took place at their home. The official document also emphasizes that the wrongful execution of Willingham is a tragedy and must never happen again. Thus there are two objectives to this document. The first is the restore the good name of Willingham, and secondly, to ensure that a tragedy of this kind never happens again that of executing an innocent man. These objectives were arrived at based on the petition of Willingham’s surviving relatives.
Texas legislature …show more content…
This means that the innocence of the accused person must be proven. In the claim itself, Willingham’s innocence was proven via two major concepts. The first is via the forensic evidence that was present at the scene of the fire. The evidence presented were the reports of Dr. Hurst and the Arson Review Committee that both negated the conclusion that the fire was an arson case, and the conclusion was that no one could have set the fire in the first place. Webb’s testimony during the trial was then refuted, with the use of the reports of Dr. Hurst and the Arson Review Committee as well. The District Court of Travis County then concluded that no juror should have accused Willingham of murder through arson at the …show more content…
It was pointed out that both the criminal court and Governor Perry ignored the Hurst report, which clearly proved Willingham’s innocence. Thus solutions must be created in order to fix the wrong committed against Willingham and to ensure that similar cases do not happen again in the future. On the part of the judicial system, a solution was the modification of Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure to include not only DNA testing but all available scientific evidence. Also, a thorough review of the evidence by the judiciary was included in the said expansion of Chapter 64. The judiciary would now be charged with correcting errors in the criminal trial if such errors were discovered. The second solution connected to Governor Perry’s refusal to Give a censure. even if the Hurst report was made available to him. The 30-day censure is usually provided to the executive branch when evidence such as the Hurst report become available. The discovery is that the Texas clemency procedure did not have any formal processes, and thus it was never used by the executive branch in the state. Hence, recommendations to provide formal guidelines for the Execution about forgiveness had to be put in place in the state of
Texas legislature …show more content…
This means that the innocence of the accused person must be proven. In the claim itself, Willingham’s innocence was proven via two major concepts. The first is via the forensic evidence that was present at the scene of the fire. The evidence presented were the reports of Dr. Hurst and the Arson Review Committee that both negated the conclusion that the fire was an arson case, and the conclusion was that no one could have set the fire in the first place. Webb’s testimony during the trial was then refuted, with the use of the reports of Dr. Hurst and the Arson Review Committee as well. The District Court of Travis County then concluded that no juror should have accused Willingham of murder through arson at the …show more content…
It was pointed out that both the criminal court and Governor Perry ignored the Hurst report, which clearly proved Willingham’s innocence. Thus solutions must be created in order to fix the wrong committed against Willingham and to ensure that similar cases do not happen again in the future. On the part of the judicial system, a solution was the modification of Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure to include not only DNA testing but all available scientific evidence. Also, a thorough review of the evidence by the judiciary was included in the said expansion of Chapter 64. The judiciary would now be charged with correcting errors in the criminal trial if such errors were discovered. The second solution connected to Governor Perry’s refusal to Give a censure. even if the Hurst report was made available to him. The 30-day censure is usually provided to the executive branch when evidence such as the Hurst report become available. The discovery is that the Texas clemency procedure did not have any formal processes, and thus it was never used by the executive branch in the state. Hence, recommendations to provide formal guidelines for the Execution about forgiveness had to be put in place in the state of