James Robertson, on South Carolina’s death row since 1999, is demanding to represent himself and expedite his execution, reigniting legal and ethical debates over the right to die.
At a Glance
- Death row inmate James Robertson seeks to waive legal appeals and represent himself
- Convicted of murdering his parents to inherit part of a $2.2 million estate
- Federal judge has delayed ruling to evaluate Robertson’s mental competence
- His attorney argues untreated depression and chronic pain impair decision-making
- Around 10% of U.S. executions involve inmates volunteering to hasten their death
“I Don’t Want to Wait”: Robertson Rejects Appeals
James Robertson, convicted of killing his parents in Rock Hill, South Carolina, is now asking to fire his lawyers and push forward with his own execution. Sentenced to death in 1999 for staging a robbery and murdering his parents to secure a cut of their $2.2 million estate, Robertson is attempting to speed up the process by representing himself.
He has cited deteriorating physical and mental health as well as frustration with years of what he considers ineffective legal representation. “No ethical attorney will withdraw an appeal that will result in their client’s execution,” he said, highlighting why he feels forced to act on his own behalf. His decision follows the executions of fellow inmates, including a close friend, which he says crystallized his desire to end the prolonged process.
Legal Pause to Assess Competence
Federal Judge Mary Gordon Baker has issued a 45-day delay to determine if Robertson is mentally competent to waive his appeals and represent himself. “We need to ensure he fully understands the implications of his actions,” Baker said. In addition to this delay, another attorney has been appointed to consult with Robertson and assess his ability to make legal decisions.
Robertson’s current lawyer, Emily Paavola, requested a longer delay of four months, citing concerns over untreated depression and chronic pain that could impair his judgment. Despite those concerns, the judge has opted for a shorter timeframe to expedite evaluation.
Watch a report: Death row inmate attempts to avoid execution.
“Volunteers” and the Ethics of Execution
Robertson is not alone in his request—about 10% of executions in the U.S. involve inmates voluntarily giving up their appeals. These “volunteers” often spark legal and ethical debates about autonomy, mental fitness, and the role of state power in capital punishment.
This is not Robertson’s first effort to drop appeals. He attempted to waive them in the early 2000s but was stopped by legal safeguards requiring thorough competency evaluations. His renewed attempt has drawn broader attention, featured in true crime discussions, CourtTV segments, and other legal media.
A Personal and Legal Crossroads
Robertson has cited the emotional toll of watching other inmates die as a major influence. “To see my best friend go from one day playing cards with me to the next day not being here anymore… he basically has taken a similar route that I’m choosing to take now,” he said. His decision forces the court—and the public—to wrestle with whether the justice system should allow someone to hasten their own death sentence.
As the 45-day window progresses, Judge Baker’s ruling will determine not just Robertson’s immediate fate, but the broader legal precedent for self-representation in capital cases. The case underscores the complexity of justice, mental health, and autonomy at the intersection of life and death.
