434
submitted 1 day 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day 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).

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.

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

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.

[-] a_wild_mimic_appears@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

I had more the human aspect than the legal definition in mind when i thought about guilt.

i'm sure he knew it was illegal, but that knowledge often doesn't help or just steps into the background when mental strain and pressures just get strong enough. I'm convinced that with working mental health care (and a social safety net thats worth a damn) a lot of those violent outbursts could be just not happening.

in the same vein i think that even if such an outburst happens, it is not per se indicative of repeat offenses, if the offender actually receives rehabilitation and not simple punishment (especially at such a young age) - in contrast to a career criminal who is used to the "life style" or someone who has a long list of violent behavior.

ETA: had time to read the complete article now. his was a crime of anguish and pain, who did not get help even when it was blatantly obvious what was happening inside of him.

[-] tlou3please@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] NiHaDuncan@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] tlou3please@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

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.

[-] NiHaDuncan@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

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.

[-] tlou3please@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

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.

[-] NiHaDuncan@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

That is not the false dichotomy you proposed, you just moved the goal posts to make it an actual dichotomy.

[-] tlou3please@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

I literally just reworded the same point but ok

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
434 points (99.3% liked)

News

22895 readers
5800 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.


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 1 year ago
MODERATORS