Man says he lied when he testified against inmate who is set to be executed
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.
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.
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.
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.
That is not the false dichotomy you proposed, you just moved the goal posts to make it an actual dichotomy.
I literally just reworded the same point but ok
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.
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.
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.
Don't they almost always end up shot at the end anyway?
Yes, but if they somehow don't I wouldn't be opposed to finishing the job later if it's determined they weren't mentally compromised at the time.
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.
Now who's creating fictional scenarios? How convenient that it's ok to do when it supports your argument.
I've given an example of a potential extraneous factor. That's not the same as a hypothetical case being used to dismiss fringe cases that we know for a fact happen.
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?