Oklahoma Starts Planning Executions for 25 Death Row Inmates, Including Richard Glossip
A federal judge rules against effort to stop use of three-drug cocktail.

Oklahoma Attorney General John O'Connor is asking the state to schedule executions of 25 prisoners on death row.
Executions in Oklahoma had been suspended temporarily as death row inmates fought the state's method of execution—a lethal injection of three drugs. One of the drugs, midazolam, is supposed to serve as a sedative that would render the prisoner unable to feel the pain as potassium chloride stops the heart. The death row inmates and their attorneys argued that midazolam has shown to be insufficient to dull the pain and executing prisoners with these drugs amounts to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.
But last week a federal judge ruled against the inmates and determined the three-drug cocktail is a constitutional method of execution. On Friday, O'Connor submitted 25 filings with the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to try to set 25 dates for executions of inmates. Oklahoma currently has 43 inmates on death row.
According to the Associated Press, O'Connor is requesting the first execution no earlier than August 25 and then a four-week interval between each execution to account for the state's clemency process, so these executions would take place across the next two years. First up would be James Coddington, who would have been executed in March were it not for the aforementioned lawsuit.
Second on the list would be Richard Glossip, who was the lead plaintiff of the aforementioned lawsuit. Glossip was very nearly executed in 2015, but prison officials realized that they had received the wrong drug. Oklahoma officials later realized that they had actually executed a prisoner previously with the wrong drug and all executions were put on hold until last year.
Glossip has been Oklahoma's highest-profile death row inmate because he is plausibly innocent and the details of his case have brought celebrities, activists, and bipartisan calls for mercy. Glossip was originally convicted in 1997 of the murder of Barry Van Treese. Glossip did not actually kill Van Treese directly, but he was convicted of allegedly convincing Justin Sneed to do the deed in exchange for money and the prospect of managing a motel. Sneed cooperated with police and confessed to avoid death row himself. Jurors were not shown footage of police interrogating Sneed and encouraging him to implicate Glossip to save himself.
Glossip's team has evidence and witnesses and experts have come forward to say that Glossip was not involved in this murder. They say instead that it was a robbery gone wrong by Sneed. But despite all the evidence, Glossip has exhausted his appeals.
The evidence in the Glossip case was enough to get 28 Republican and six Democratic Oklahoma lawmakers to send a bipartisan letter to the Gov. Kevin Stitt to ask for a review of Glossip's case. Glossip's attorney, Don Knight, put out a statement urging the state to not execute him while the case is still being reviewed.
"Those findings could reveal exculpatory information previously unknown until this point," Knight wrote. "Until everyone has the opportunity to examine the final report, the attorney general has a moral duty to delay the execution of Richard Glossip. No matter where people stand on the death penalty, no one should want to kill an innocent man. The stakes are too high to rush this process. A man's life is on the line."
Oklahoma has had four executions since restarting them in 2021, but Stitt did deliver mercy to a death row inmate where there were questions of actual guilt. In November, Stitt commuted the death sentence of Julius Jones, just hours before he was scheduled to be executed for the murder of a man killed in a carjacking in 1999. As with Glossip's case, several Republican lawmakers came forward with concerns about Jones' guilt, and the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board agreed and voted 3-1 that there were enough concerns about his guilt to commute his sentence.
It's already settled fact that Glossip didn't actually kill anybody. There's also evidence that Sneed pointed to Glossip to save his own hide. We may see within the next couple of months whether this information is enough to save Glossip from lethal injection.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Where are the self proclaimed "pro life" Republicans when the death penalty is being discussed?
They're hypocritically cheering on, and trying to expedite, as many executions as possible.
Just proves that "pro life" is a deceitful term used by lying hypocrites who oppose banning the death penalty, and who are only concerned for the lives of unwanted fetuses.
Note that Oklahoma Republicans just banned ALL abortions.
For most, it is a matter of guilt.
The unborn is certainly innocent of everything.
The soon-to-be executed normally is guilty of quite terrible things.
Not saying I approve --- I have zero moral problems with it, but the state is inept and cannot wipe its ass, much less dictate life or death --- but that is a widely held view.
A death sentence should NEVER be handed down in a circumstantial case. However, most death sentence cases read like a two minute Columbo episode. Serial killers, gang bangers, etc.. Tjere is zero reason to keep them alive.
I wonder if there's a fundamental difference between killing a child who hasn't done anything yet vs a much larger, older clump of cells that tortured some children before killing them?
Just proves that "pro life" is a deceitful term used by lying hypocrites who oppose banning the death penalty, and who are only concerned for the lives of unwanted fetuses.
Shall we have a discussion about the shallowness of "pro-choice" from the people who label themselves with that term?
And I say this as someone who is pro-abortion... with limits, like most of the rest of the country which makes up the "remarkably stable consensus" on abortion.
The other side as well, if I wish that the death penalty was more often carried out by victims once it was clear their torture or murder was imminent and/or to prevent the death of others, does that make me pro-life, pro-death, or pro-choice?
It makes you pro bad-ass.
Pro insurrectionist at least
I agree with what you wrote. I'm a pro-life Catholic dude though. I've found the pro-life Catholic movement intersects a lot with the anti-death penalty movement. I've seen this charge thrown around a lot, but I don't think I think it falls apart for many reasons once you think about it for any amount of time.
There are a lot of Christians who are anti-death penalty. I believe what Mssr Godshall is referring to is the group of people nominally on the right... who may occasionally go to church (and in many cases do not) who preach on various moral issues such as abortion and are sometimes presumed to be Christians.
Yeah, I need a better way to phrase what I said. My main point is, I think a lot of points combine so that his point doesn't last even a moment of consideration about the subject.
You identified the flaw in Bill Godshall's post. He's talking about two different subjects entirely (abortion, and the death penalty) that only have a death at the hands of man in common.
But here's how I'd respond to his comment. If Godshall is for banning the death penalty, then isn't it better that the perpetrator be forced to work for the rest of their life until they compensate the victim (or victim's family if murdered) for the harm they caused? Note, this is bringing back slavery as indentured servitude until the victim is paid back. Of course, the criminal could choose to not work, in which case they'd lose their ability to stop the execution.
This seems superior to having the victim sue the criminal in civil court when the death penalty is involved, and how do you get a judgement when the defendant is executed and dead?
"There are a lot of Christians who are anti-death penalty."
The entire modern Roman Catholic church is, who previous posts indicate is Godshall's enemy number one. Surprisingly he didn't know that.
So hiring a murderer to execute someone is a morally neutral thing to you and should be legal in your eyes? You might want to work on that moral compass of yours, seems a bit broken.
Where are all the "pro choice" Democrats when mandating the COVID-19 vaccine to patronize a bar or restaurant was being discussed?
The irony goes both ways.
It burns as well.
One time I was talking with this woman about school choice, and she thought it was a great idea until she found out I meant parents choosing their kid's school. She thought I meant abortion in public schools.
Reason (old Reason) had a great video interview where they were catching people at the DNC convention (if I recall) and discussing "pro choice" with them. Almost all of them ditched the 'pro-choice' moniker once the question was no longer about killing your kid.
It is like they believe choice does not exist outside a woman's lady lips!
I'm against the death penalty, but comparing killing 600,000+ innocent unborn babies a year versus 30-40 violent murderers is just idiotic.
Uh, is there any choice that supposedly “pro-choice” liberals support, other than abortion?
It seems that they consider the labia the maximum extent if a woman's choice!
I even have made $30,030 just in five weeks straightforwardly working part-time from my apartment. (res-32) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was exhausted and luckily I found this top online task & with this I am in a position to obtain thousands directly through my home. Everybody is able to get this best career & can gain more dollars on-line going
this article... https://oldprofits.blogspot.com/
The choice of deciding, as a first grader, of whether to mutilate one's genitals to parade as the opposite gender.
There is no hypocrisy and you know it. There is a world of difference between executing a murderer who has been duly convicted and killing a baby who hasn't even drawn a single breath. You can string two sentences together well enough that I know you understand this.
I don't even believe in either of these positions, and your pretense of self-righteousness is flat-out painful to read.
I am one of many "pro life" Republicans who oppose the death penalty. But I do not oppose it as strongly as I do abortions and here is why: Taking the life of an innocent baby does not offend me as much as a guilty adult. But I never really understand why we kill people to show that killing is wrong.
By the way, if I was facing execution I would ask for an overdose of fentanyl. I think it provides for a very comfortable death and there's plenty of it coming across the border.
I think the question is: can this person be reintegrated into society? If not, what are you going to do with them? Who is going to pay for their lifetime of incarceration? Are you going to have work camps so they can pay for themselves? Are you going to exile them to some island?
So, by that reasoning, "pro-choice" means I have a right to choose absolutely everything in my life? Of course not. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both labels or names for more complex political and moral positions.
What Republicans and conservatives believe in (and what is termed "pro-life") is the biblical commandment "thou shalt not murder". Taking an innocent life is murder. Executing a criminal is not.
"Where are the self proclaimed "pro life" Republicans when the death penalty is being discussed?
They're hypocritically cheering on, and trying to expedite, as many executions as possible."
Right here you strawmanning sack-of-shit.
I've always argued against the death penalty here as have many other pro-lifers. Terribly, sorry to ruin your rhetoric though.
If you cannot comprehend the difference between putting to death a person who has deliberately and wilfully caused the death of an innocent man, on the one hand, and an unborn child yet wihtin his Mother's womb, perhaps there is no hope for you either.
The bible DOES in fact say, when read in common english,
thou shalt not kill". That is a poor choice of the english word. It means, in te old hebrew, to murder, that is, to end the life of an innocent person.
Elsewhere the bible DEMANDS the execution of anyone who deliberately causes the death of an innocent person. Abortion IS the wilful killing of someone who has done no marm to anyone, and don't try and give me that folly about the baby is an "inconvenience" to his Mother. SHE is the one invited him in when she coupled wiht the sperm donor.
It also gives specific instances when the killing of an individual is lawful.. such as when someone breaks into your occuied home at night... "yu may strike him that he die and no bloodguil shall come unpon you".
Don't want to die young? Don't invade someone else's house. Simple enough. Son;t want to be executed by the government? Simple enough. don't be responsible for murdering an innocent.
As to the chap fingered by another who admitted to killing, I don't have enough information to have an opinion. I WILL say, though, since it seems new information has come into the case, that MUST be heard. I will also say that letting the hands-on killer escape his own deserved execution by fingering this man is wrong. The one DID take another'slife witohout justifiction. Playing stoolie to get off ourself is not justice. If both payed team tag and that resulted in the death of the third, then both playing that game need to play the new game of getting executed. Maybe even together.
the bible also commands the death penalty in genesis 9:6
I, for one, oppose both abortion and the death penalty. I can make heads explode.
There are people who have shown that they are not fit to live among us. Life in prison or death doesn’t matter to me. The unborn? What they did was disrupt someone’s life at an in opportune time. Not sure that that qualifies as “not fit to live among us”.
Not my ultimate choice on either count.
Minor but critical correction: the unborn did not disrupt anyone's life.
there is zero hypocrisy in wanting to protect the life of an unborn child and also wanting to kill some dirtbag murderer on death row. if you can't see the difference then you're an idiot beyond help. every one of these 25 killers should be executed forthwith.
OK, so the drug might not work to dull the pain. Fine. I'd bet lots of people would provide a quick and simple method of execution that will cause no pain. A bullet to the back of the head. Cheap, effective, and easy to source.
Actually, I remember reading somewhere that if you want quick and essentially zero chance of failure, go with firing squad. Evidence of "painless" is difficult to gather, but 6 rifles, 5 bullets, and 1 heart = 1 definitely dead dude.
Probably as "humane" as you're ever going to get.
I find it interesting the dialogue is around the pain and suffering of execution at all. Why stop at physical pain? Going through court and spending time in prison surely has led to much more sustained and impactful trauma and suffering, so what are a few minutes of drug induced pain?
>>But despite all the evidence, Glossip has exhausted his appeals.
aloha Bill Godshall ... no state should have the power to execute.
With very few exceptions, we Koch / Reason libertarians believe no crime deserves more than a 2 month sentence. Put the convict in a "time out," then release them into the pool of cost-effective labor available to billionaire employers like Reason.com's benefactor Charles Koch.
#FreeTheCriminals
#EmptyThePrisons
#CheapLaborAboveAll
Glossip was originally convicted in 1997 of the murder of Barry Van Treese. Glossip did not actually kill Van Treese directly, but he was convicted of allegedly convincing Justin Sneed to do the deed in exchange for money and the prospect of managing a motel.
That would make Glossip more in the wrong then Van Treese. Murder-for-Hire does not transfer responsibility away from the hirer.
Glossip's team has evidence and witnesses and experts have come forward to say that Glossip was not involved in this murder. They say instead that it was a robbery gone wrong by Sneed. But despite all the evidence, Glossip has exhausted his appeals.
That's the better argument. And your final statement that it's settled fact he didn't kill anyone, because he's alleged of murder-for-hire, does more to damage those fighting against capital punishment than help it.
Seriously, Reason does these linguistic tricks all the time, and it damages the movement in the long run. When people learn what was actually meant, they feel betrayed and trust is lost.
As was written here, this is about life-and-death. Please take this seriously and don't disseminate sloppy rhetoric and hurt the movement.
His defense attorney said he's not guilty. What more evidence do you need?
Lori Lightfoot on line 2...
I just find the linguistics games so tiring. It particularly pisses me off because the death penalty has a clean, strong, resonate argument against it.
There's also strong practical argument against the death penalty.
That is, that it's an irrecoverable act and we do not have enough confidence in most cases to pass a death sentence with certainty. A lot of people sympathize with this argument, and evidence is presented in the article in this direction.
What's immoral in of itself, is when death penalty opponents play down the crimes themselves. There was a supreme court case recently about whether a pastor could lay hands on a convicted man as he was executed[1]. I think the case was rightly decided. So much of the discussion I read about it played down his crimes though. He was dead-to-rights convicted for the murder of a 37-year old shop keeper, father of 9 children. He stabbed him something like 20+ times, and left him for dead. It apparently took hours for Pablo Castro to finally die. It's a horrendous crime.
I would still argue against the death penalty in this case, but we must do so without forgetting the victims. We always forget the victims so damn quickly in cases. We always forget our dead. It is a moral injustice.
[1] - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-5592_feah.pdf - Though it was really a much more clear-cut case of religious discrimination as Texas basically allowed it for Christian pastors, but changed the rules when this guy tried to have a Buddhist pastor with him. Not really a death penalty case.
I disagree with your conclusions (that the death penalty is never warranted) but I respect your rationale and moral consistency. You are making the argument the correct way and you'll convince more people in a more solid manner over the long run with that method.
I agree with n00bdragon here (disagree with conclusion, but appreciate consistency). I have zero problem with the death penalty. My biggest beef is we do not apply it quickly enough, or often enough.
There are people who deserve to die for their crimes.
There's also strong practical argument against the death penalty.
That is, that it's an irrecoverable act
This always sounds good, but it doesn't survive more than about 15 seconds thought. Because the only alternative penalty is a prison term, and that isn't recoverable either.
A prison term is partly compensatable, of course, but only partly. Thus, for example, there isn't any sum of money that could compensate me for, say being wrongly jailed for 5 years, never mind 25. And I mean not any sum - you could make me owner of every item of property in the world and it still wouldn't compensate me for 5 years jail. And I don't think the compensation for wrongful imprisonment runs to those sort of numbers anyway.
"This always sounds good, but it doesn't survive more than about 15 seconds thought. Because the only alternative penalty is a prison term, and that isn't recoverable either."
Wrong; sloppy argumentation.
Release after X years =/= death.
Grow up and accept that compromises are part of any decision
I suppose, though the end result of that thinking is no imprisonment is allowed because doubt will always exist. I think that's pretty extreme, and maybe not even morally consistent.
If your argument is that we should err even more extremely on the side of the defendant, then I am more sympathetic. There's always going to be some line drawn somewhere though.
An additional thought though, the gain of death penalty vs. not is the years after the sentence being overturned. This is non-trivial, even if it's not perfect.
No my argument is that whatever the arguments against the death penalty are, irrecoverability can't be counted among them, if the only alternative is also irrecoverable. (I don't believe anyone is seriously suggesting fines as an adequate sentence for murder.)
It's like saying Teslas are a bad car to buy because they cost money. Well, yeah they cost money and so free cars would be better. True, but who makes free cars ? That they cost money is an unpleasant characteristic of all cars.
And thus, as irrecoverabilty is an unpleasant characteristic of all plausible sentences for murder, irrecoverability per se can't figure as a reason to prefer one over another.
You are obviously right that that part of a jail sentence that hasn't yet been served is in fact "recoverable." But in the same way a death sentence that hasn't been carried out yet is also recoverable. Things that haven't happened yet have a tendencty to be recoverable - though "evitable" would be more accurate.
So I am not arguing as Sevo inanely bleats that death and prison are equivalent punishments, merely that the argument that the death penalty has a special disadvantage on account of irrecoverability is an illusion. Prison has the same disadvantage. All cars cost money.
You are (inanely) offering a false equivalence.
Sloppy thinking.
and it's also a good argument for it. the dirtbag cannot kill again once he's executed. irrecoverable indeed. i like it.
Seriously, Reason does these linguistic tricks all the time, and it damages the movement in the long run. When people learn what was actually meant, they feel betrayed and trust is lost.
Reason's pretty clearly not a part of the 'To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth' culture. Not directly opposed to it, but pretty clearly, far-and-wide, not a part of it.
It drives me nuts. I would argue in murder-for-hire the hirer is more morally responsible for the crime. This seems to be the case that Oklahoma argued and sought conviction for.
I can easily see someone arguing they hirer and the murderer both have equal bearing. I would find it hard to argue that the hirer has less culpability or is not a murderer in this case.
I disagree with you on this one. Despite legal precedent, I would ONLY hold the person who committed an action guilty of anything, not the one who said something. If I tell you to slap somebody because it will give me joy, and you do it, the law should blame you 100%. If I promise to pay you, you still made the conscious choice to slap someone. Even if I hand you the money beforehand.
Maybe use fentanyl since the country is awash in it.
People kill THEMSELVES with Fentanyl. So how unpleasant can it be?
Ask George Floyd. He couldn't breathe for minutes before expiring because of it.
He should have taken more.
Government is involved, which means they need someone to build a Rube Goldberg machine.
Like a lot of things, tried and true are better for executions (firing squad, guillotine) than the latest technology. At the time it was invented in the 1970s, lethal injections were supposed to be more pleasant to watch, and less painful if done by trained medical professionals, but most will not participate in executions because it’s against their beliefs to cause death. So your left with prison guards who may or may not know what they are doing.
Glossip did not actually kill Van Treese directly, but he was convicted of allegedly convincing Justin Sneed to do the deed in exchange for money and the prospect of managing a motel.
Nope. I don't think you can be convicted, even in Oklahoma, of "allegedly convincing" somebody to do something. I think what you meant was that he was convicted of convincing Mr Sneed to ice the unfortunate Mr Van Treese, but that you disagree with the verdict.
And that the Governor shoud grant clemency because, obviously, the opinion of a Reason scribbler should carry more weight than the findings of the Oklahoma court system.
There is one thing I remember about the Glossip case.
the first time he was convicted and sentenced to death, he appealed and won. It was on remand that he was convicted and sentenced to death again, and it is these judgments which are on appeal.
Glossip, in the photo, sure looks like a guy who was falsely convicted, though I only know the jury convicted him based on the testimony of the actual killer. The victim being the owner of a small motel, Glossip being the manager, and the killer being the maintenance man (not really employed at the motel, but staying there for his services apparently at Glossip's OK) with a meth habit and also a habit of stealing from automobiles at the motel.
Seems Glossip made a bad decision in allowing the killer to do maintenance. I think Glossip may be innocent, because the killer said Glossip told him to kill the owner "so he could run the hotel with a new boss" and half the cash the victim had on him. On the other hand, per a tulsaworld.com article:
"Van Treese and his wife, Donna Van Treese, audited their business in late December 1996 and discovered that more than $6,000 was missing from the Oklahoma City books, according to court records"
So Glossip might have stolen that, but it seems stupid to kill the owner to try and cover it up, even if he did get a 19 year old with mental issues to do it. And it seems more likely the killer was stealing for his meth habit. It's a weak case for the death penalty.
Julius Jones was 100% guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
But I'm against the death penalty, so whatever.
" . . . argued that midazolam has shown to be insufficient to dull the pain . . . "
OK, I will play the game.
How many dead guys complained about the pain? How big is the sample size?
Even at today's prices, bullets are cheap.
(yes, I know. Cartridges are cheap too)
I don't understand why the choice isn't simply between nitrogen asphyxiation and opioid overdose. I mean, those are both methods people choose voluntarily when faced with the need to take their own life for medical reasons.
Women's rights groups should be outraged: Not enough women being executed in Oklahoma.
One thing about this piece I cannot figure out.
I have had major surgery multiple time requireing general anaesthesia. The drip went into my arm, mild burn at that point, just like a standard blood draw. Minor discomfort for a few seconds. The :"juice" was not dropped until after I had cooperated with them to get settled onto the table, everything ready. They "leaked" just a bit of the juice which sort of made me sleepy. As they helped me lay on my back on the table, the plunger went down and before I hit the sheets, I was out. Anyone could have driven a truck tractor and a set of doubles over me and I'd never have known. Whether it was an hour or ten I was out, I had no clue. I had NO recollection of anything not even any dreams. Gone. Black hole. As tey were finishing up, I guess they backed off on the rate of the "juice", once they had reassembled me , brought me into the recovery room, I woke up like I'd just taken a short nap.
WJHY can't tney just use those drugs to knock the executionee out cold like I've been so many times, then once he is totally numb, add the heart stopper drip until his heart quits and he's gone to his reward. Hospitals knock out patients for surgeries by the dozens every day, and NO ONE has any awareness of that was done to them while they were "out" What makes anyone think a prisoner being executed would? This whole business of "feelingt he pain" is totally avoidable. Jusst do the same thing surgical patients get in hospitals and clinics every day all accross the country.
Personally I an convinced that a convicted murder is best executed by firing squad. No hood, face the line, ten shooters, fire at will when the order is given until Cease Fire is called. Particularlly in cases where the murder was perpetrated by the use of firearms. Give the perp a bit of time to experience what he put his victims through. That would help serve as a deterrent to others contemplating such a crime.
The hood is to protect the executioners - basically so they don't look the condemned man in the eye.
Multiple times in multiple surgeries, I've woken up in the middle of the procedure. No panic. No fear. Just grogginess or a lack of broader understanding sensibilities.
The only time I've had any panic associated with a medical procedure/anesthesia was waking up from having my inner ear operated on. My understanding is that the condition is/was indistinguishable from vertigo. As I came to, the room began to move more and more aggressively in random dimensions. Grabbing the bed in panic only made it worse by highlighting that my hands and body were telling my brain that the bed was 'spinning' with me and my eyes/ears were telling me "Nope." Closing my eyes or wearing a mask made it better. Still disorienting as fuck, but better.
The drugs for execution work as you've described.
All you have to do is read the article to understand that the anti-death penalty people are lying through their teeth about the 'pain'.
Gods above, half of the job of the anesthesiologist is to make sure you don't just fade out while under.
Tionico,
As an anesthesiologist with 30 years experience, I can tell you that versed can be used to induce the same general you describe.
We used to use Pentothal to induce anesthesia and for unconsciousness before execution.
Pentothal is long gone, but when versed first came out we used it to induce general anesthesia.
It took about 3 minutes for the full effect after intravenous injection.
Once Propofol was invented, we all switched to that as it worked in 30 seconds.
So Versed in a dose of 0.5 mg peg kilogram of body weight and waiting 5 minutes to inject the potassium would work fine.
Why drag doctors into the fray when Oklahoma veterinarians put down so many horses without humanitarian complaint?
sex in bern Best sex in country
The vet came to our house. Gave the dog a shot to go to sleep. Gave it one more shot and put it out of its pain and suffering. Why is this so difficult.
I think it’s time to move away from lethal injection as the method of execution and go with hanging or firing squads.
Gas 'em. Silent and deadly. Or put a bullet through their brain stem. I don't care - just do 'em. No need to wait after each one - they've all been on death row for years. Do it now. All in one day. Boom boom, out go the lights.