for those not paying attention, Richard Glossip has been on Oklahoma's death row for a number of years after being convicted of paying someone to kill his former boss. no evidence has linked him to the alleged crime, and the testimony against him revolved around an inmate -- Justin Sneed -- that the state convinced to testify against Glossip in order to reduce other charges Sneed was facing. the testimony given by Sneed was probably coached to put Glossip away and several inmates who had cells near Sneed claim he bragged about setting Glossip up to take the fall for the crime. Glossip was given a temporary stay until this newer evidence could be heard, but that stay was lifted today and his execution will be tomorrow unless the US Supreme Court (or President Obama via commutation/pardon) intervenes.

regardless of whether or not one supports the death penalty (and i certainly do not support it in any way, shape, or form) this case is one of those ambiguously vague applications of capital punishment that caused the former governor of Illinois to commute the death sentences of over 100 inmates as his final act of office. the idea that someone can be put to death for a crime based on the testimony of only one person, and whose "evidence" can only be loosely tied to them should cause anyone to take a minute to reflect if this is the best we can aspire to. we should not be in the business of executing potentially innocent people if there is any doubt whatsoever of their guilt. this man seems to have about a 70% chance he is not guilty of the crime he will be executed for, is this really the example we want to uphold how "fair" our criminal justice system really is?