South Carolina Inmate Gives Lawyer Authority to Decide Execution Method
Greenville, South Carolina- An inmate in South Carolina who was compelled to select his method of execution has delegated the decision to his lawyer, subsequently leading to a choice of lethal injection rather than the alternatives of electrocution or death by firing squad.
The dilemma arose after Freddie Owens, 46, petitioned that he could not actively participate in his own death by choosing a method, as it would contravene his Islamic faith, which strongly opposes suicide.
The Conviction and The Execution Method
Owens, who was found guilty for the murder of store clerk Irene Graves during a string of thefts in Greenville back in 1997, is slated for execution on September 20. This event will represent the first execution carried out by the state of South Carolina in over thirteen years. The delay has largely pinned on the struggle to procure the necessary drugs for lethal injection.
Emily Paavola, Owens’ attorney, has voiced concerns over the information regarding the drugs involved. She questioned whether the details surrounding the killing agent would guarantee a death devoid of unbearable pain, which could deem the execution as cruel and unusual punishment.
Paavola stated, “I have known Mr. Owens for 15 years. Under the circumstances, and in light of the information currently available to me, I made the best decision I felt I could make on his behalf.”
Alternative Execution Methods and Legal Provisions
South Carolina, once a state with a high execution rate, has not enforced death penalty for its inmates since 2011. This suspension was primarily due to the challenge of procuring lethal injection drugs and faced significant backlash from pharmaceutical companies due to confidentiality issues regarding the sale of these substances.
However, last year, the state legislature passed a law enabling officials to veil information about drug suppliers. Consequently, the state’s Supreme Court ruled for the availability of the electric chair and firing squad as possible execution methods.
Without the advocacy of Paavola, Owens would have defaulted to a death by electrocution under the state law – a fate that Owens fervently expressed his desire to avoid.
The Matter of Contention
Now that Owens’ fate seems sealed, his attorneys focus has shifted towards postponing his execution, alleging that his co-defendant lied about the existence of a plea deal in order to testify against Owens and evade a death penalty or life imprisonment sentence. The co-defendant, Steven Golden, testified that Owens was the offender behind Graves’ fatal shooting due to her inability to open the store safe.
In a sworn statement, Golden confessed to a verbal agreement that he would avoid the death penalty or life sentence. Despite this, the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office stands firm that Owens has been granted sufficient opportunity for litigation under legal provisions.
The attorneys are working tirelessly to reprieve Owens’ death sentence temporarily, attributing factors such as incomplete brain development at the time of the crime and potential bias due to an electronic stun device worn during the trial.
The Race Against Time
In order for Owens to escape his lethal injection appointment, it would rely on the unlikely event of a governor granting clemency and converting his death sentence to life imprisonment. This has never been exercised by a governor in South Carolina’s 43 executions since the reinstatement of the U.S. death penalty in 1976. Meanwhile, Republican Gov. Henry McMaster intends to withhold his decision until the last possible moment.
