512
submitted 3 months ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world

Just days before inmate Freddie Owens is set to die by lethal injection in South Carolina, the friend whose testimony helped send Owens to prison is saying he lied to save himself from the death chamber.

Owens is set to die at 6 p.m. Friday at a Columbia prison for the killing of a Greenville convenience store clerk in 1997.

But Owens’ lawyers on Wednesday filed a sworn statement from his co-defendant Steven Golden late Wednesday to try to stop South Carolina from carrying out its first execution in more than a decade.

Prosecutors reiterated that several other witnesses testified that Owens told them he pulled the trigger. And the state Supreme Court refused to stop Owens’ execution last week after Golden, in a sworn statement, said that he had a secret deal with prosecutors that he never told the jury about.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] DmMacniel@feddit.org 131 points 3 months ago

And the state Supreme Court refused to stop Owens’ execution

When the blind justice has a hard-on for killing people...

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 15 points 3 months ago

First execution in nearly 10 years.

[-] DmMacniel@feddit.org 52 points 3 months ago

still bloodthirsty that they refuse that execution even though new information have come to light.

load more comments (37 replies)
[-] thesohoriots@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

In South Carolina? First on-the-books in nearly 10 years.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Maeve@kbin.earth 103 points 3 months ago

That the United States holds ourselves a bastion of democracy and human rights is absolutely absurd. The death penalty shouldn't exist; This is quite possibly murder.

[-] orcrist@lemm.ee 9 points 3 months ago

I understand you're speaking casually, but in fact many of us do not say that. It's always a risky proposition when you conflate an organization with individuals in it.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] joe_archer@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Killing somebody because they killed somebody just seems hypocritical. Regardless of the ethics.

[-] Soggy@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

From a strict utilitarian "this person is an active threat to the lives of others and cannot be rehabilitated" perspective, I get it. We kill wild animals for a lot less. Given perfect knowledge I don't have a hard line against execution.

But that's a hell of a hypothetical. Lots of violence is circumstantial and not necessarily and indication of future behavior, especially if we actually gave a shit about mental health and improving the living conditions of struggling people. Far too many convictions are improper or outright incorrect. Society should have a responsibility to care for the worst of itself. It all stacks up to "do we trust ourselves, and our government, with something so extreme and irreversible?"

[-] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 months ago

Well it always costs more, in the US Justice system, to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life. So that alone throws out the utilitarian approach. We're all paying extra just to kill him now than if we just kept him locked up for life because he might be a direct threat to everyone and not be rehabilitated.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] superkret@feddit.org 73 points 3 months ago

FFS if you insist on keeping this barbaric custom, at least limit it to cases that are 100% sure.

[-] tlou3please@lemmy.world 52 points 3 months ago

That's kinda what it comes down to for me though. Can you EVER be 100% sure? Even if you're 99.5% sure, odds are sooner or later you'll execute someone who was innocent. And in my opinion that one single lost innocent life means the practice is unjustifiable.

I wonder how many people who disagree with me are pro life.

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

I think you can. For example, I am 100% sure that Ethan Crumbley shot his classmates. (That doesn't mean I think he should be executed though).

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 45 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Knowing about how deeply police intimidate, manipulate, and gaslight inmates/people in custody to get these confessions, both confessions should be under deep scrutiny.

"Criminals" intimated into confession is literally just the police refusing to do their actual jobs and using emotional and mental manipulation to "crack the case." They didn't find the killer, they just bullied a plausible suspect into "admitting" they did it.

Fucking sickening.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago

Confessions in police custody without being verified as voluntarily provided by defense counsel should not be admissible in court as a confession.

The death penalty should be abolished.

Appeals should have the same reasonable doubt standard as a trail. If new information introduces reasonable doubt is juat as important as whether they followed procedures during the trial. The whole idea that 'it should have been introduced at trial' is commonly used to dismiss appeals based on evidence that was excluded or not available at the time, especially for defendents that can't afford high priced lawyers.

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The whole idea that ‘it should have been introduced at trial’

It's almost as if the entire "justice system" is designed to protect a certain class of person while fucking over everyone else. Cue the people so shocked that this "justice system" can easily be abused by people acting in bad faith to enable fascism. People have been brainwashed into believing that the USA isn't just Diet Fascism. Fascism with a pretty face, fascism with "free speech" so the plebes have a steam valve to release their frustration while also being told that protesting is too disruptive so they need to stick to "free speech zones" miles away from what they're protesting. Wild that it's so hard to put together when the original Constitution only allowed land-owning white men to vote.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago

You will NEVER get the south to give up capital punishment.

The Bible belt will never accept that God is to be the ultimate judge, just like they will never accept the equality of the races.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] RalphWolf@lemmy.ca 23 points 3 months ago

And now he's dead.

What the hell is wrong with those people?!? If there's any doubt, then pause the execution.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Honestly, I don’t know. I wish I knew. I want to understand my opponents even if just to understand how best to fight them, but this just seems so blatantly evil I can’t understand it.

This attitude is what scares me even more than the Christian nationalist terrorism and bigotry. Because this blase approach to formal state sanctioned execution is how very evil people start moving the country towards a comfort with “if the government executed them then they deserved it”. We must remember that Holocaust began with criminals. I just don’t trust the government to kill anyone, and this right here is part of why.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

In a just society that would be a commutation at the very least. You don't use the death penalty if any doubt exists. Nobody is saying to set the man free. That can be adjudicated later, if at all.

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

I respect workers, and the vast majority of workers administering the death penalty become opposed to the death penalty.

https://www.npr.org/2022/11/16/1136796857/death-penalty-executions-prison

Workers deserve protections, always. No worker should have to do this or witness this. The death penalty is cruel and unjust.

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

And the state Supreme Court refused to stop Owens’ execution last week after Golden, in a sworn statement, said that he had a secret deal with prosecutors that he never told the jury about (emphasis added)

WTF?

[-] apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

The only people who should suffer the death penalty are those who advocate for it.

The actual capital punishment for human beings should be a lifelong attempt to teach them empathy and make them truly regret what they did. There are two extremes: people with a lot of empathy, and psychopaths. Every living being is on a spectrum between the two. If the spectrum is swinging too far to being a psychopath, keep them locked up forever - not as a punishment, but to protect society. If they are capable of learning empathy, make them truly regret their deeds and that will be punishment enough.

People who advocate for the death penalty are typically very far removed from empathetic human beings, toward the psychopath end of the scale.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 3 months ago

Don't worry everybody. It's South Carolina, so there's no chance they won't execute him. Gdi.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
512 points (99.4% liked)

News

23627 readers
3812 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS