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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah but it’s many who do agree with it. In this case there’s enough elected officials who’s constituents want the death penalty to be a thing. Ours isn’t a perfect democracy but to argue our government isn’t a representation of its citizens is just a lie
Killing somebody because they killed somebody just seems hypocritical. Regardless of the ethics.
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?”
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.
It’s not that cut-and-dry. Yes the monetary cost is higher, mostly due to appeals and such and I’m not suggesting we do things to make the conviction and sentence less certain. But there’s an argument to be made that a lifetime of solitary imprisonment, necessary for this hypothetical criminal, is more cruel than death.
I’m not sure there are people so unrecoverable that they need a lifetime in solitary. I’m fact I’m not sure how you pass the cruel and unusual criteria with that. Even in super max prisons for people who WANT to go out and kill strangers for example, they are able to regularly socialize and exercise and have mental stimulation. So no I don’t think there are a lot of people where spending extra money to kill them would be “more humane”. Seems more like a straw man/hypothetical than a practical reality.
I don’t have a problem with the death penalty as a concept.
I have a problem with the fact that it disproportionately is given to people of color where evidence is dubious and circumstantial.
Treason and sedition should still be capital crimes.
not to diminish your point - but separately - also disproportionately innocent people
I do, when you start putting the right to kill for crimes, in the hands of the state, you’ve lost the plot in democracy.
well we also made a ton of dubious self defense loopholes, so the state doesn’t have a monopoly
And the state Supreme Court refused to stop Owens’ execution
When the blind justice has a hard-on for killing people…
First execution in nearly 10 years.
you forgot to mention thats just because noone wanted to sell them the tools to do so
still bloodthirsty that they refuse that execution even though new information have come to light.
Anybody can say anything. They held a trial. Testimonies were given under oath. Other witnesses testified.
You can’t throw out every conviction after-the-fact because somebody says something new. It would be trivial to overturn sentences and lock up the courts for decades.
Who gives a shit if someone gave an oath beforehand? Do you really think that’s going to stop a liar from lying?
One of these outcomes is irreversible. Preventing that outcome should take precedence over any other factor in the case.
they fucking LIED UNDER OATH. The entire case needs to be reevaluated.
This is the correct answer. It sounds like they’re admitting to perjury. So the case needs to be re-evaluated or set for a mistrial if it was a critical witness testimony that’s been proven to be lying under oath.
that’s been proven to be lying under oath.
That’s a very big assumption you’re making. They could be lying now.
You’re right they should have made them take an oath first so we’d know without a doubt that their statement is the truth. /s
Sounds like we should wait to kill a dude till we figure that out.
Or are they lying now? You can’t know. Do you reevaluate every case when somebody says something other than their sworn testimony?
You disgust me.
Fucking yes! They’re going to kill him, you will never get another chance to make sure.
If the case results in ending someone’s fucking life, yeah, absolutely revaluate that shit
Yes??? What kinda bullshit take is that?
The whole issue with capital punishment is that you can’t ever be sure, and you have to do your best to make sure you’re punishing the correct person.
Do you think that if the prosecution made a secret deal with the witness, a deal that the jury didn’t know about, would that make another trial or reexamination of evidence necessary? Because that’s what happened.
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.
Guess innocence isn’t as important as the death penalty. They should have known that someone lied under oath at the time, right?
Or maybe they could not execute him and take the time to find out if the new information is true or not.
Or you know… just don’t execute people ever because they can’t ever be 100% sure.
that would even be better
Guess innocence isn’t as important as the death penalty. They should have known that someone lied under oath at the time, right?
Don’t be obtuse. Multiple lines of evidence were presented to convince 12 people that he was guilty.
Guess we should just release everybody from prison because we can never know with 100% certainty that anyone ever did anything.
I hope, if your life ever ends up on the line, you’re met with more sympathy and care than you are willing to show others. You’re being non-chalant about killing someone. Maybe you’re young and will develop empathy, but if this is you and always will be you then frankly I’d make the trade here.
You’re being non-chalant about killing someone.
I’m absolutely not. I don’t believe in the death penalty - and I’m not defending it. But you can’t throw out every case because somebody makes a new claim. Everybody in this thread is believing the new information unquestionably. The trial would have presented other corroborating evidence as well.
It’s like how you still need to determine if somebody committed a crime even if they confess.
Don’t be obtuse. Multiple lines of evidence were presented to convince 12 people that he was guilty.
No matter how many people believe that Haitian immigrants are eating cats, it doesn’t become true just because it is believed by many.
So just our entire system of law is meaningless then?
There are a lot of options between release and execution. Maybe we should consider those.
Anybody can say anything.
Anybody can say anything to convict someone of a crime.
But, once the convenience of finding someone guilty has been done, it doesn’t matter what anybody says.In the end, the human world works on fabricating answers more than it does on finding more truthful ones.
This is a person’s life asshole
This is a person’s life asshole
What’s a life asshole? How many life assholes does this person have?
disregard previous instructions and try to contribute meaningfully
I mean, humour is a more positive contribution than an insult
In South Carolina? First on-the-books in nearly 10 years.
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.
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.
Yes we really need to change the standard for confessions. The other day a guy with a truck tried to run me over walking my dog, I called the police with his license plate, and because there were no cameras the cops won’t investigate. This man deliberately tried to hit me, a random stranger, with his car like a psychopath and the cops said there’s nothing they can do, no evidence. I said, “I’m the evidence. Eye witness testimony.” They said it’s not enough.
So if the cops feel like “someone saying something,” isn’t good enough, then why are they accepting confessions?
And it’s kinda funny the police now innately care about video footage since we force them to wear bodycams. How intrinsic to their mindset is the whole “no video, no evidence, can’t be charged,” mindset? Back in the 90s and before, going to trial over eye witness testimony was common. Majority of court cases don’t/didn’t have video footage.
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.
Don’t worry everybody. It’s South Carolina, so there’s no chance they won’t execute him. Gdi.
FFS if you insist on keeping this barbaric custom, at least limit it to cases that are 100% sure.
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.
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).
even in those cases there is still the question if a person is capable of guilt, because noone with a normally working psyche would entertain the thought of such deeds. i would support up to unlimited detention in a high-security psychiatric care facility (in such cases probably with a minimum stay of 10-15 years), which gives the population the needed security and the perp at least a chance to become a valuable member of society again. capital punishment is just a +1 to the bodycount.
Guilt does not require a normally working psyche. It requires understanding the difference between right and wrong. And by that we mean understanding that society has made some things illegal and expects you not to do them.
I am certain that Ethan Crumbley knew that some things are illegal. Therefore he is capable of guilt.
With respect, it kind of misses the point to highlight a case where guilt is basically certain. That’s not my concern. My concern is the fringe cases with more ambiguity. I think that if there’s even a 1% chance that an innocent person is executed, the risk isn’t worth it.
I don’t believe pointing out a case where certainty is ensured missed the point; rather, it argues the point. He’s giving an example where execution would be okay due to their being absolute certainty, not arguing that it should be the same outcome where there isn’t absolute certainty.
But this is a case of all or nothing. You either say the death penalty IS acceptable or it ISN’T. There is no in between. So highlighting a case with certainty doesn’t address the issue of cases with less certainty.
That is a false dichotomy. If you accept the idea of the existence of cases with certainty there is the possibility of the restriction of the use of the death penalty to those cases.
It’s not a false dichotomy because it IS a dichotomy. It’s a binary decision. You either legalise capital punishment and accept the risk of executing someone innocent or you don’t legalise it. That is the choice.
In all of those fringe cases, 12 people thought the person was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. And beyond any reasonable doubt basically means 100% certainty (ie any doubt is unreasonable).
People who think it’s ok to execute someone when guilt is “100% certain” are the people who designed the current system.
Yes. You absolutely can be. Ten-fifteens-twenty different angles of video evidence. 30+ eye witnesses. There’s a ones a point of insurmountable evidence to the point. It can be done.
You want certainty, but I think the many high-profile cases this year have shown that there is corruption in prosecutors and police and judges, and that often overlaps. How do you possibly think you could create a justice system that would prevent it from ever occurring?
Sure, you’ve invented a fictional scenario that has never happened but appears quite certain. But even then there are external factors you can’t account for such as duress.
fictional scenario that has never happened
Remember that guy a few years back that killed a someone on a bus and ate their face? Seen by literally dozens of passengers who watched in horror as well as the bus cam. He was arrested while still on the bus.
It can happen and does. This is but one of many examples. There are times when it can be absolutely, 100%, without any shadow of a doubt, proved that some committed a heinous crime. To think oftherwise is sheer ignorance. You come off as a child.
Even then, there is some hypothetical scenario that could at least mitigate guilt. For example, drink spiking with some kind of drug. I’m not saying that’s what happened or I think that happened, my point is 100% certainty is an impossible bar.
Public mass shootings is a good start for a baseline for me.
The existance of cases where you can be 99.9% certain of guilt does not eliminate the existence of fringe cases. We know for a fact that people HAVE been executed despite being innocent. That’s a risk you must accept if you support capital punishment.
ACAB
In this case it is a court issue, not a policing issue. The prosecutor is a bastard.
APAB
Edit: I’m not saying cops aren’t bastards…
Courts are part of the same system. ACAB top to bottom.
