The witness—who claims he falsely identified Owens as the killer because he feared for his life—said that barring a stay, the condemned man "will die for a crime that he did not commit."
The office of Republican South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson responded to Golden’s affidavit on Thursday, calling his claim “inherently suspect” and stating that he “has now made a sworn statement that is contrary to his multiple other sworn statements over 20 years.”
So your only witness is either lying now, where he has no reason to, or he was lying back in 1997 when it was out of fear for his life and under pressure of the police.
And that’s enough grounds to confidentially procede with killing a man…
I know “beyond a reasonable doubt” is subjective, but there is no world where that’s not “reasonable doubt”.
Playing devil’s advocate, a person could provide false testimony, contrary to earlier truthful testimony, if they feel guilt over causing this person’s execution. In no way saying that is, or is not, the case here.
Regardless, the death penalty is a profound failure. It is more expensive, innocent people can be executed, and studies show that it provides no deterrent to criminals. There is literally no benefit.
Honestly I think the biggest issue in law enforcement in general… is human testimony has this kind of weight to begin with. This guy was convicted of murder… with apparently the entirety of the evidence against him being “a criminal said he did it”.
Even if the penalty was JUST 20 years in prison, and death penalty wasn’t on the table, that’s so wrong to me. 1 man’s word is not a reliable way to confirm anything. People have garbage memories, and can lie.
Agreed we can’t tell which way the flip is… and that’s kind of the crux of the issue… The evidence was unverifiable from day 1. So even if the death penalty was never on the table… this man had nearly 30 years of his life taken away… on literally one persons word, to top it off that one person was confirmed to be a criminal.
So yeah there’s 2 major giant red flags to our justice system in this case. 1. The terribleness of death penalty to begin with. But 2. the idea of a single eye witnesses word having the ability to take decades of someone’s life away,
The one part of the argument against the death penalty that I have to object to is the expense. It’s more expensive because of the appeals process. There is a lot more opportunity to fight a death penalty case on appeal than there is if you just get a lengthy prison sentence.
Of course, that’s less of a reason to keep the death penalty, and more of a reason to address some of the huge flaws in the appeals process (not to mention the rest of the system, but that applies either way).
So your only witness is either lying now, where he has no reason to, or he was lying back in 1997 when it was out of fear for his life and under pressure of the police.
And that’s enough grounds to confidentially procede with killing a man…
I know “beyond a reasonable doubt” is subjective, but there is no world where that’s not “reasonable doubt”.
Absolutely monstrous behavior.
Playing devil’s advocate, a person could provide false testimony, contrary to earlier truthful testimony, if they feel guilt over causing this person’s execution. In no way saying that is, or is not, the case here.
Regardless, the death penalty is a profound failure. It is more expensive, innocent people can be executed, and studies show that it provides no deterrent to criminals. There is literally no benefit.
Honestly I think the biggest issue in law enforcement in general… is human testimony has this kind of weight to begin with. This guy was convicted of murder… with apparently the entirety of the evidence against him being “a criminal said he did it”.
Even if the penalty was JUST 20 years in prison, and death penalty wasn’t on the table, that’s so wrong to me. 1 man’s word is not a reliable way to confirm anything. People have garbage memories, and can lie.
Agreed we can’t tell which way the flip is… and that’s kind of the crux of the issue… The evidence was unverifiable from day 1. So even if the death penalty was never on the table… this man had nearly 30 years of his life taken away… on literally one persons word, to top it off that one person was confirmed to be a criminal.
So yeah there’s 2 major giant red flags to our justice system in this case. 1. The terribleness of death penalty to begin with. But 2. the idea of a single eye witnesses word having the ability to take decades of someone’s life away,
The one part of the argument against the death penalty that I have to object to is the expense. It’s more expensive because of the appeals process. There is a lot more opportunity to fight a death penalty case on appeal than there is if you just get a lengthy prison sentence.
Of course, that’s less of a reason to keep the death penalty, and more of a reason to address some of the huge flaws in the appeals process (not to mention the rest of the system, but that applies either way).