Regarding the stay of execution for Richard Glossip, everyone (especially in my state) likes to take a stand and speak in absolutes about guilt or innocence, and in most cases, these opinions follow that person’s general feelings about the death penalty itself, or their feelings about the heinousness of the alleged crime. Those feelings have nothing to do with Glossip’s innocence or guilt, and unless you, yourself, were a witness, you simply do not know whether he’s innocent or guilty. You, personally, don’t know.
You can choose to trust the judgement of the jurors, but the fact is, jurors have been wrong before. You can choose to trust the account of the only witness (Sneed, the man who actually did the killing), but that’s obviously suspect. Is it possible he’s guilty? Absolutely. Is it also possible he’s not? Absolutely.
It’s horrible that a man was murdered, but would justice be served by taking a second innocent human life in retribution for the first? If there’s any possibility, whatsoever, that Glossip is innocent of the crime, then it’s only right for him to have every opportunity to prove so. Wouldn’t you want the same opportunity?
If you’re so upset by the stay of execution, identify why exactly you’re upset. It can’t be because a guilty man might get to live a bit longer, because you, personally, can’t be certain of his guilt. It can’t be because the justice system itself is generally slow and inefficient, unless you’d be satisfied by the taking of a human life regardless of the certainty of guilt.