South Carolina Inmate Permits His Lawyer to Choose Lethal Injection for Upcoming Execution
In a compelling turn of events, a South Carolina condemned prisoner permitted his legal counselor to decide his method of execution. He was given alternatives of lethal injection, a firing squad, or electrocution, which was a decision his counselor reluctantly made, choosing lethal injection as his method of execution.
Inmate’s Reasoning
The inmate, Freddie Owens, aged 46, submitted court documents that stated his reason for his choice. He expressly mentioned that choosing his method of execution would mean playing an active role in his death. This act would oppose his steadfast Muslim faith, which classifies suicide as a sin. Therefore, following his religious beliefs, he had his lawyer make the crucial decision.
A Series of 1997 Crimes
Owens, who had been incarcerated for the 1997 murder of Irene Graves, a store worker, during a robbery spree in Greenville, will meet his fate on September 20. This execution will serve as a pivotal moment for the South Carolina death row, marking the first inmate put to death in over 13 years. The state had faced a lengthy execution hiatus due to difficulties procuring lethal injection medications in recent years.
Legal and Moral Dilemmas
Emily Paavola, Owens’ attorney, finalized the execution method late last week, triggering a chain of events laden with both legal and moral dilemmas. Paavola also expressed doubts regarding the limited information provided by prison authorities about the type of drug administered during the execution and questioned its pain-causing potential. Per her, if the drug causes Owens unbearable agony, it could cross the lines of cruel and unusual punishment.
Alternative Execution Methods
Amid the uproar surrounding the execution, state law dictated a harsh reality- should a decision not have been made by Paavola, Owens would face death by electrocution, a fate he personally stated he wanted to avoid. South Carolina, previously one of the busiest states for executions, hadn’t carried out any since 2011 due to soaring hurdles in acquiring lethal injection drugs. Pharmaceutical companies refrained from supplying these drugs over the tense discourse on whether or not to disclose drug trade details with state officials.
Permeating Uncertainties
Even though an organized shield law endorsed last year allowed state executives to maintain anonymity of lethal injection suppliers, concerns over the execution method are yet to subside in full force. Uncertainties still permeate over the single-drug injection protocol comparable to that deployed by the federal government, which will henceforth replace the defunct three-drug protocol of earlier times.
Future of Lethal Injections and Pending Cases
Owens falls among the six inmates who, despite running out of appeals, are putting up a fight against their execution. With thirty-two such incarcerated convicts on death row, South Carolina’s decision on this matter could extend far-reaching implications affecting future trials as well as the fate of pending cases.
