• halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not just new evidence. There was never any physical evidence linking him to the crime at all, according to the articles I’ve seen so far looking into it.

  • Cyv_@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    2 months ago

    Execution shouldn’t be an option. At least with life in prison you can release a person if you fucked up, with significant financial compensation for their time in prison. You can’t un-execute a person. The state isn’t competent enough to be given such power. Nobody is.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      The “nobody is” is the most important part to me.

      Like, society can argue all they want about choosing to execute convicted criminals of certain crimes. I’m not discussing that.

      It’s the “beyond all doubt” factor that matters most. I think we’d agree that for ~99.99999% of crimes it’s really impossible to be sure.

      If you can’t be sure, then there’s no reason to graduate to the next step of the decision “should we”.

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      The purpose of the US legal system is not to provide justice. It’s to terrorise poor people and minorities. So, it worked just fine here.

  • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    South Carolina executed a man on death row on Friday, days after the key witness for the prosecution came forward to say he lied at trial and the state was putting to death an innocent man.

    “New evidence” seems to be underselling the matter. How in the fuck could they justify not even granting a delay??

  • Cenotaph@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 months ago

    Another potential innocent murdered by the state so they can claim they’re “tough on crime”

  • Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I don’t understand how you can convict someone based on the testimony of a person getting a plea deal for turning in another person.

    The last thing the person getting the plea deal would want to do is turn over someone loyal enough to them to rob a place and shoot another person with.

    Does anyone think this would have happened if the accused was the son of a wealthy white couple? How about if it was the police chief’s son? Any senator’s son?

    Just saying. Testimony without hard evidence shouldn’t be enough for criminal conviction, let alone a fucking execution.