I'm not against the death penalty per se. But, I am generally not in favor of how it's handled in the USA. When someone outright confesses that they did the act, I don't really have remorse for them. When it's a conviction based on circumstantial evidence and no eyewitnesses, I have a big problem with it. They've screwed up before to only after the execution discover the real killer.
Now, in this case, it seems a bit muddled to me. Whereas he did admit to the murder, it appears to me to have some valid questions regarding his mental capacity. That should've been explored. The fact that they had a goon of a lawyer who'd never handled a murder trial is another problem. And, not wishing to upset any residents of Georgia on this, but the State doesn't exactly have a sterling record when it comes to fair trials. From past news clips that I've seen, it's only a safe State to be in if you are [1] white, [2] male, [3] a US citizen, [4] a religious fundamentalist [but not a JW fundamentalist --- the fundies hate them], and [5] straight. Knock any one of those criteria out and you can pretty well kiss your ass goodbye regarding any serious legal problems.
I remember visiting Atlanta about 5 years ago and the racial divide was so overwhelmingly apparent. It made me sick. It's nowhere near the cutting edge on gay rights. It's one State I don't really have a desire to visit [although I have several friends who live there and want me to come out and visit], let alone live in.
I say "yes", have Blair intervene. If it's then proven by a fair re-trial that he's really guilty not by reason of insanity, then I don't really have a problem with the execution. However, if it is proven that he does have a mental problem that was not within his control allowing him to commit the murder without really knowing what was happening, then I'm in favor of just locking him up for life.