Executions in South Carolina to Continue Monthly Until At Least March

The State Supreme Court Responds to Inmates’ 13-Week Interval Request

In Columbia, South Carolina, attorneys for the state have called an inmate’s request for 13-week intervals between executions an unnecessary delay. Instead, they are suggesting no more than 28-day intervals. According to the state Supreme Court, no further execution will be scheduled until it renders its decision on the motion forwarded by the inmates’ legal representatives to space out the deaths.

The first execution planned since 2011 in South Carolina would see Freddie Owens executed on September 20. The issuance of a death warrant is imminent for five more death row inmates, but the timeline depends on the High Court’s decision. No mandatory time is set by state law between executions.

If the court were to agree to the 13-week interval request put forth by inmates, only one additional execution could be scheduled this year. The suggestion arose from a response from the South Carolina Attorney General’s office, which noted that over a seven-week period spanning December 1998 and January 1999, the state executed six inmates, with two being executed on the same day.

A Look at Execution Numbers in Other States

No state has executed more than four people this year, argued the inmates’ attorneys. In 2023, the only states executing more than four people were Texas, executing eight, and Florida, with six executions recorded, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

Consecutive executions resulting in a high frequency of executions over a short period, say five executions in five weeks, present a number of potential complications. The inmates’ attorneys brought up the increased potential for error, potentially causing a condemned individual to suffer unduly during execution. Executioners also might not have sufficient time to adjust protocols or learn from previous executions if they are happening in quick succession. Also, an inmate might change his mind about the method of execution if problems arise unexpectedly. The attorneys also pointed out that the stress and physical toll on staff members required to carry out multiple executions in a short time could be significant.

The State’s Response to Inmates Concerns

The state has dismissed these worries as speculation, emphasizing that none of these issues have arisen in South Carolina previously. The Department of Corrections staff are prepared to carry out their duties as required by law with professionalism and dignity, retorted the office of Attorney General Alan Wilson.

While South Carolina has not carried out an execution since 2011, it seems this hiatus is coming to an end. After a lack of available drugs led to a halt in executions, legislators passed laws in 2021 making electrocution the default execution method and adding the firing squad as an alternative. Four condemned inmates challenged these new measures as unconstitutional, but they were overruled by the state Supreme Court, thus allowing the resumption of executions.

Bryan Stirling, the Corrections Director, acting within his legal requirements ahead of an execution, testified that the state is prepared to execute Owens using any of the three available methods. All three methods have been tested and found to be without issue.

Lethal Injection Option Returns After Hiatus

Lethal injection is once again a viable option for execution following legislation that allowed drug purchases to be conducted in secret, enabling the prison agency to restock its supply.

The process of resuming executions after the long break commenced by the state is acknowledged by Wilson’s office, and though several notices may be issued, they do not support the extended delays requested by the inmates. Wilson’s office cited the federal government’s execution of 10 inmates in 2020 after a 17-year pause.

As the execution process resumes in South Carolina, there are still questions to be answered. One key issue is whether condemned inmate Freddie Owens should be allowed to delegate the decision regarding his execution method to his attorney. Following Owens’ transfer of decision-making powers to his attorney, Bryan Stirling, the prisons agency director, requested that the court determine whether this is permissible under state law. Both Owens’ and the state’s attorneys have until Friday to submit their responses to Stirling’s query.