Guest: Are you willing to be a sacrifice so that death penalty can continue?

Just over a week ago, Oklahoma moved one step closer to executing Richard Glossip, for the ninth time.

This time was different. Now, even our attorney general won’t defend our case against Glossip. He’s doing everything in his power to stop the execution, including asking the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board at the clemency hearing April 26 to recommend clemency. He said this was the first time to his knowledge the attorney general’s office has ever asked the board to stop an execution. In his own words, the attorney general said:

More:Oklahoma AG files Supreme Court petition supporting stay of execution for Richard Glossip

“I believe this board should support a recommendation of clemency based on the complete record that includes evidence the jury did not hear. I believe it is a great injustice to allow the execution of a man whose trial was plagued by many errors.”

And, yet, the board denied clemency by a vote of 2-2. We move forward to May 18 when we will execute Glossip. If this were not shocking enough, let us not forget it was Glossip in 2015 who was hours away, already in the execution chamber, when we realized we had the wrong drug in the room. We stopped his execution and realized we had already executed Charles Warner with that same wrong drug. Glossip’s attempted execution is what brought about the moratorium in Oklahoma that lasted six years.

The moral ground to stand on in support of the death penalty in Oklahoma is quickly shrinking. You hear many say we must make sure the person being put to death is guilty. Logically, this would mean we only support the death penalty if we can guarantee we get it right every time. Otherwise, we must make our peace with the number of innocent people we are OK with killing to maintain the institution of the death penalty. Since 1976, we’ve executed 1,550 people and realized 190 people on death row were innocent and were then exonerated. Our failure rate at this point is 12% or about 1 in 10. Is this the number you are comfortable with? Unless you can find a way to guarantee we will never get it wrong, you have to pick your number. If you can pick a number, or if you’re OK with our current number, we may disagree, but at least you’re applying intellectual integrity to one of the most important decisions we are making about one another: whether we live or die.

If you can pick a number, we still have a few more questions to answer. Are you OK with knowing who that 1 in 10 is? Are you OK with it being your neighbor, family member or your friend? Because we can’t pick our number and then say we’re OK with 1 in 10 as long as the one comes from this part of the state, or this city, or this neighborhood, or looks this way. To have any moral and ethical ground to stand on, we can’t have rules for where the innocent come from.

If you can pick a number and you want to maintain some sense of integrity, you must answer a final question: Are you OK with being the 1 in 10? Will you be the sacrifice so the death penalty can continue? If you say no, then you do not actually believe in the death penalty. Or perhaps you do but now you must be honest about the exceptions to your beliefs and what those exceptions mean about how you view the value of life and whose life is valuable.

If the concerns we have about executing Glossip are about making sure we do not execute an innocent person, then we must acknowledge this fundamental truth: Right now we get it wrong 12% of time. We’ve exonerated 10 people in Oklahoma. It is also true that we have executed someone we later discovered was innocent. Sentencing and killing innocent people is an inherent part of the death penalty. We cannot make the system perfect, so we have to pick the error rate we are comfortable with.

When I was put in a position to vote on the life of another human being, I realized my number was 0. I will not support a system where there is even a 1% chance we get it wrong, much less 12%. If I’m not willing to be the innocent person executed or if I am not willing to watch my innocent loved one die, then I should not support it at all. My proximity to the system we’ve created to make these decisions brought me to this conclusion. As the chair of the Pardon and Parole Board, I saw case by case the flaws in this system. If you are willing, you will see in Glossip’s case the issues that exist in the death penalty everywhere it is practiced. If you are willing, you will see the concerns that Glossip’s case raise point to more fundamental issues with the death penalty. If you are willing, it is time to answer these questions about our support of the death penalty. Once we answer these questions, we may still disagree, but we can’t dismiss the level of moral and intellectual integrity this collective decision demands. The death warrant issued when we sentence someone to die begins “We the people of Oklahoma …” and the manner of death listed on the death certificate is homicide. It is being done on our behalf and in our name.

I see in Glossip’s case all the reasons why it is time to stop killing people in Oklahoma. I no longer want this done of my behalf or in my name.

Adam Luck is the former chairman of the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board.