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 thread.
View all comments
106 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
10 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

In that case, you should be talking about which state did the execution, because the death penalty is state-specific. It’s not the country that did it, it’s the state. So target those people.

Also, you’re saying that the government represents its citizens because it’s a democracy. Of course that’s not true. Elected officials might represent the majority of voters, or they might pass legislation that is supported by a majority of voters on a given issue. But then what about the minority? They still exist. Please don’t forget about them. Please don’t pretend that the government is representing them.

(And sometimes that’s a good thing. There are people who have fringe views, and depending on those views I’m happy that they don’t have political power.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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?”

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

But we can stop people from killing. We can get into questions of mercy killing when we start talking about supermax for life. But at the end of the day once someone’s in custody and known to be extremely violent they’re able to be stopped from killing people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

well we also made a ton of dubious self defense loopholes, so the state doesn’t have a monopoly

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

not to diminish your point - but separately - also disproportionately innocent people

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I agree. You kill someone, your life should also be over. There is no rehabilitation, you don’t get a second chance. There is no “making it right”, you ended the life of another person and no you go bye-bye as well.

But there needs to be certainty, and the way it is handed out now (especially in red states) is atrocious.

I keep reading these comments of people talking about how the murderer can be rehabilitated and then society is better. No, it’s not. And if someone killed their loved one they would be singing a completely different tune.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You keep saying kill and not murder. In our legal system there’s some pretty significant differences.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

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.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 8.9K

    Posts

  • 161K

    Comments