The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a last-minute appeal to halt the execution of Brad Sigmon, an inmate scheduled to die by firing squad in South Carolina, marking the first use of this method in 15 years.
The Supreme Court's decision paves the way for Sigmon's execution on Friday evening, after his emergency motion was rejected, allowing the practice of execution by firing squad to occur once more in the United States, The Hill reported.
Brad Sigmon, who is 67, was found guilty in 2002 for the brutal murders of his former girlfriend’s parents, David and Gladys Larke. The grisly crime involved Sigmon fatally bludgeoning the couple with a bat. He also attempted to end the life of his ex-girlfriend, Rebecca Barbare, but she managed to escape.
The option of choosing a firing squad over other methods of execution was Sigmon's. He bypassed both electrocution and lethal injection. His execution was initially planned for 6 p.m. EST on a recent Friday. However, this decision was contingent upon Governor Henry McMaster's choosing not to intervene with a last-minute reprieve.
Sigmon's conviction was scrutinized over the years by numerous courts, all of which upheld the judgment. Even the highest court in South Carolina has thoroughly examined and confirmed the decision, reinforcing the legality of his sentence.
The recent appeal filed by Sigmon’s public defenders focused on what they labelled as an urgent issue. They argued that Sigmon faced a denial of due process because of what they described as a "compressed election timeline and arbitrary denial of information." Essentially, they contended, the rapid pace left Sigmon without a genuine opportunity to make use of state-granted rights regarding choosing a humane execution method.
The defenders went on to articulate that if his execution proceeded without a pause, it would occur without the highest court having had the chance to thoroughly examine his claims. Sigmon's representatives highlighted these serious concerns in their application.
The state's attorney general's office countered the appeals with an observation about timing. They noted that Sigmon had consistently delayed making these arguments up until right before his planned execution date. In a statement, the prosecutors emphasized the delay strategy: Sigmon "has litigated claims ever since," and if allowed, would continue indefinitely. "At some point," they added, "the delays must end."
The case hasn't been devoid of broader implications, either. The Supreme Court's history shows a leniency toward denying stays of execution for death row inmates, having turned down at least ten such applications since October. This statistic casts some light on the broader context within which Sigmon’s last appeal found itself.
The case also saw the country's highest court recently grant a fresh trial to another inmate, Richard Glossip, based on previously undisclosed evidence. Still, Sigmon's case followed a harsher trajectory, leading up to his impending execution.
The debate surrounding Sigmon's execution method highlights complex issues inherent in the American judicial system. Especially with a seldom-seen return to the use of a firing squad, the ethical and legal implications have been at the forefront of discussions.
The path to this moment was marked by significant legal battles. Sigmon’s crimes, committed over two decades ago, have kept his case in the public eye and court dockets. The double murder, followed by the prolonged legal process, emphasizes the tension between justice for victims and concerns over execution methods.
As the countdown to his execution continued, the fate of Sigmon stood as a testament to the complexities of the justice system. South Carolina's first firing squad execution in 15 years would not only mark an endpoint for Sigmon but would also punctuate a contentious chapter in capital punishment’s evolving narrative.
