CNN just ran a story on possible flawed scientific evidence that was used to convict a father of killing his two sons in a fire. The result of the conviction is a spot on death row with an execution date still not set. The inmate and his attorney’s however are arguing that the science used in determining that the fire was intentionally set was flawed. The father claims to have been trying to heroically save his two children from the burning flames using a ladder and hose but failed before firefighters eventually found the two children dead as a result of the toxins from the fire. Reports show that since the original finding of arson, two arson specialists have examined the evidence and are unable to conclude that it was in fact arson. You can read the full story from CNN.com HERE.

What do you think? Is arson science reliable enough to sentence a man to death? Even after two arson scientists have been unable to reach the same conclusion?

This brings up another pertinent and long lasting question: Should cases be reopened in light of new evidence or new technology?