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.

  • RalphWolf@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    4 days ago

    And now he’s dead.

    What the hell is wrong with those people?!? If there’s any doubt, then pause the execution.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 days ago

      Honestly, I don’t know. I wish I knew. I want to understand my opponents even if just to understand how best to fight them, but this just seems so blatantly evil I can’t understand it.

      This attitude is what scares me even more than the Christian nationalist terrorism and bigotry. Because this blase approach to formal state sanctioned execution is how very evil people start moving the country towards a comfort with “if the government executed them then they deserved it”. We must remember that Holocaust began with criminals. I just don’t trust the government to kill anyone, and this right here is part of why.

      • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        As one of his last actions before leaving office, Donald Trump fast-tracked 13 federal executions. It’s like he wanted to kill as many people as he possibly could.

    • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      They’re Christian Nationalists who believe the bible must be taken literally!

      Therefore they are strictly pro-life (before birth), they believe he who has sin must cast the first stone, and those moneylenders must be worshipped as the job-creators they are!

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        They’re Christian Nationalists who believe the bible must be taken literally!

        Literalism is always a fraud because every written work of length contradicts itself and/or leaves room for interpretation. Language is imprecise and a lot of these works were also translated which allows even more opportunity for interpretation.

        • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          I mean, also it was a time when we didn’t have any science at all, so believing magical spirits and all powerful invisible sky-men control the world are get angry when you masturbate is just as reasonable as the germ theory of disease and the laws of thermodynamics.

          But it’s like having an imaginary friend: Fine when you’re a child, but after a while, you might just have psychiatric issues.

        • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          And 73 virgins didn’t come from the Qur’an, it came from some Imam who wanted political power so he sold his followers as soldiers to as rising potential Caliph.

          Ignorant people rewrite their religion to match their personal views, in fact the bible was completely rewritten by Constantine to support the Roman empire and convince Christians that it was truly Christian to fight and die for him.

  • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 days ago

    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 (emphasis added)

    WTF?

  • Maeve@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    104
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days 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.

    • joe_archer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

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

      • Soggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        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?”

        • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          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.

          • Soggy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 days ago

            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.

              • Soggy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                That’s a very coercive relationship, I don’t think there’s an ethical way to implement “optional” suicide when the only alternative is the other party having total control over your life.

                • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  Yes it is a very coercive relationship. It should only be used on people who have proven incapable of having non-coercive relationships with others.

            • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 days ago

              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.

              • Soggy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 days ago

                I did literally use the word “hypothetical” to couch my statement. It should probably be reserved for people whose existence is dangerous to society as part of a larger movement, cult leaders or treasonous generals or some such that have a substantial influence beyond their confinement. I know: martyrdom, you can’t kill an idea, etc. Not sure I buy it.

                • Omgpwnies@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  There are ways to silence those people without killing them though. Theoretically that is the reason that GITMO exists.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          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.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      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.

      • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        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

        • orcrist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          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.)

          • angrystego@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            I think the original statement that the US can hardly be thought of as a bastion of human rights when allowing death penalty to be used on state level is true anyway.

            • intensely_human@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              We have to do something about people who can’t be in society.

              Many people can be rehabilitated but some cannot. For them, our options are killing them or imprisoning them permanently.

              I’m not sure, of those two options, which is a greater violation of rights.

              I do think that permanent imprisonment immediately becomes less of a rights violation if the prisoner is given the option to commit suicide in a painless way.

              But if they’re forcibly kept alive, or forced to do something horrific like banging their head into concrete to escape their life, I think it’s very possible that’s a greater injustice than simply ending them.

              • angrystego@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                Well, you could work with them like in Scandinavian countries. Prison doesn’t have to be torture, right? People don’t have to suffer there and do horrific things to kill themselves to escape the suffering.

    • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      6 days 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.

      • drdalek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        6 days ago

        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.

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 days ago

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

      • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        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.

        • Snowclone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

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

  • macniel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    128
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days 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
        49
        ·
        6 days 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
          4
          arrow-down
          38
          ·
          6 days 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.

          • snooggums@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            41
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days 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
              2
              arrow-down
              17
              ·
              6 days 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.

              • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                22
                ·
                edit-2
                6 days 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
                8
                ·
                6 days 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.

                • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 days ago

                  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.

              • pupupipi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                6 days 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

            • Tyfud@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              6 days 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.

            • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              6 days ago

              Or are they lying now? You can’t know. Do you reevaluate every case when somebody says something other than their sworn testimony?

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 days ago

            Testimony should not be considered proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

            Anyone who’s lived among humans knows that human speech often differs from the truth.

          • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            6 days 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.

          • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            5 days ago

            Who gives a shit if someone gave an oath beforehand? Do you really think that’s going to stop a liar from lying?

          • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            6 days 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.

            • otp@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              6 days ago

              This is a person’s life asshole

              What’s a life asshole? How many life assholes does this person have?

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Excuse me where can I find a chalk line?

          That would be aisle 28 … wait a second you’re not with the state of South Carolina are you?

          Yes

          Get this guy out of here! We told you you’re banned from here sir

  • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 days ago

    The only people who should suffer the death penalty are those who advocate for it.

    The actual capital punishment for human beings should be a lifelong attempt to teach them empathy and make them truly regret what they did. There are two extremes: people with a lot of empathy, and psychopaths. Every living being is on a spectrum between the two. If the spectrum is swinging too far to being a psychopath, keep them locked up forever - not as a punishment, but to protect society. If they are capable of learning empathy, make them truly regret their deeds and that will be punishment enough.

    People who advocate for the death penalty are typically very far removed from empathetic human beings, toward the psychopath end of the scale.

  • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

      • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 days ago

        No, because that’s the point.

        They’re not weak like us, they aren’t troubled by such petty details like due process and justice. This is about order more than law.

        Live there for a while, you learn the sheriff is the local feudal lord, and you better bow and scrape if you want to get by.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Opening the possibility that “x will never be accomplished” is probably useless demotivatiomal talk, while giving the commenter the benefit of the doubt in that there might be some purpose I haven’t thought of.

      • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        The south is continuing to execute people, mostly on racist bases, and they won’t stop.

        You can’t shame someone who has no shame, and the rest of the world acting in shock of their behavior has no impact on them.

        They’re like Trump-followers, the trolling and shock value is the point, they get off on it.

        The last time the South decided to continue a practice the rest of the country abhorred, they fought a brutal, treasonous war resulting in the death of a million Americans. Words aren’t going to lead to change, they never have before.

        People need to understand we either force the South to enter to modern era, or they never will on their own.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          So you’re encouraging the recognition that it’s fruitless to get worked up over it? “Don’t feed the trolls” essentially?

          • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            No, I think we need to stop whinging and actually do something about it.

            We need to resume reconstruction, put laws like the VRA and others back into place, we need to force them to live in the modern world under the constitution.

            Just like we sent the FBI down, but we waited till they tortured and murdered 3 white northern kids, we should be brutally aggressive and take all of their bigotry and corruption apart.

            We need to pass a law or amendment that allows us to challenge any southern conviction on the basis of evidence and/or clear bias, not just process and/or constitutionality.

            We need to stop indulging the south when they do all this vile, evil shit, Hitler literally wrote about Southern Jim Crow in Mein Kampf as a model\ that Germany needed to look to, and our black GIs came back from fighting Nazis in Europe to be lynched. We owe them better.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

  • superkret@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days 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
      53
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 days 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
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days 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).

        • AWildMimicAppears@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days 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.

            • AWildMimicAppears@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            6 days 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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 days 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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                5 days 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 days 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.

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days 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.

      • Zexks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        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.

        • orcrist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          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?

        • tlou3please@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 days ago

          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.

            • tlou3please@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 days ago

              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.

              • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 days ago

                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.

          • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            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.

            • tlou3please@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              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.

              • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                4 days ago

                Now who’s creating fictional scenarios? How convenient that it’s ok to do when it supports your argument.

                • tlou3please@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 days ago

                  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.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days 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
      21
      ·
      6 days 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
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days 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.

      • LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        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.