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.

  • Maeve@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 hours 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.

    • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      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.

  • macniel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    5 hours ago

    And the state Supreme Court refused to stop Owens’ execution

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

      • macniel@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        5 hours ago

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

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          4 hours ago

          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.

            • Tyfud@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              2 hours ago

              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.

          • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 hours ago

            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.

          • snooggums@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            25
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            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.

            • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              3 hours ago

              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.

              • catloaf@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                2 hours ago

                There are a lot of options between release and execution. Maybe we should consider those.

              • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 hours ago

                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.

              • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 hours ago

                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.

              • pupupipi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                2 hours ago

                but the cheap labor?? the us wouldn’t survive without the prison system, don’t know why they’re wasting good drugs on the guy though, why waste a life unless we get to make some burgers out of him or something, right? god bless

          • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            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.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours 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.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 hours 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.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours 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.

  • superkret@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    5 hours ago

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

    • tlou3please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 hours 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).

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      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…