deathpenalty(300x300)On September 30, 2015, the execution of Richard Glossip was stayed for the fourth time — this time, mere minutes before the scheduled lethal injection. Glossip, who was convicted in the 1997 Oklahoma murder of Barry Van Treese, was previously scheduled to be executed on September 17 before obtaining an emergency stay pursuant to a motion to admit new evidence. This time, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin stayed the execution for another 37 days to investigate the Department of Correction’s lethal injection policy.

Glossip was found guilty for the murder of Van Treese, the owner of the hotel Glossip managed, even though it is undisputed that Glossip did not carry out the actual deed. Rather, it was Justin Sneed, the key witness for the prosecution and a former janitor at the same motel, who murdered Van Treese, supposedly for a $10,000 payout from Glossip. Counsel for Glossip obtained the third stay on September 17 in an attempt to admit new evidence that could undermine the credibility of key witness Sneed. Counsel for Glossip claimed that a former cellmate of Sneed overheard him admitting to having framed Glossip.

In June, the Supreme Court denied Glossip a temporary injunction against execution by lethal injection with the drug midazolam, which was used in recent botched executions.

Glossip’s case has garnered national attention from death penalty abolitionists and supporters alike. Supporters argue that Glossip has had every opportunity to argue his innocence, but has lost time after time. Abolitionists in turn argue that the prosecution’s reliance on Sneed, who himself was convicted of the same murder, created an incentive for Sneed to lie in order to receive clemency.

Death penalty abolitionists argue that the delay and inconsistency in its application makes the death penalty a cruel and unusual punishment, prohibited under the 8th Amendment to the Constitution.  For example, the same crime that landed Glossip on death row, would not receive a death penalty today in Connecticut, where capital punishment was just abolished on August 13, 2015. Furthermore, the fear of putting an innocent person to death gives good reason to abhor the policy, especially in Glossip’s case, with supposedly new evidence being brought forward, as well as evidence as to questionable practices of the prosecution.

Glossip’s case has drawn from both arguments. He continues to argue for his innocence based on a wrongful conviction, while also attacking the institution of capital punishment itself.

One area where abolitionists and supporters alike should be able to agree, is that the delay that has become expected in death row cases (like this one, which began after the 1997 murder), exacerbates the suffering of the victim’s family and friends. The family of Barry Von Treese is very frustrated with the delay and the tactics of Glossip and his counsel. Such frustrations were also shared by some of the survivors of the Boston Marathon bombing, but to different conclusions. Before Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was sentenced to death, Bill and Denise Richards, who lost their son in the Boston Marathon bombing, and Jessica Kensky and Patrick Downes, both who lost limbs, asked the court to hold back from issuing a death sentence. They said that the inevitable appeal process would draw out their suffering, and that they want to overcome their own impulse to vengeance.

Of course it is senseless to compare the suffering in these very different cases. But we must examine to what extent the current policy enacts, or possibly delays, justice, and how that delay affects the victims of crime and their families.

Richard Glossip’s execution is, as of now, scheduled to proceed on October 30, 2015.