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.

  • Soggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months 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
        0
        ·
        2 months 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.

    • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months 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
        0
        ·
        2 months 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
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

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

          • Soggy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Guantanamo Bay is a pretty rough argument to hold up, considering its history of human rights abuse and the fact that it’s stolen land from another sovereign state. (“Perpetual lease” for a fucking pittance. Bullying weak neighbors more like.) Not exactly on a clear moral high ground.