A fourteen-year-old boy was executed in South Carolina in 1944, and he is the youngest person ever to be executed in the 20th century. However, now one activist is fighting to clear the boy’s name and prove that his death was caused by society’s prejudice against African-Americans in the mid-1900s.
The boy, George Stinney, was accused of brutally murdering eight-year-old Mary Emma Thames and eleven-year-old Betty June Binnicker, both of whom were young white females. Stinney was taken to a jail in Columbia, 50 miles away, and because of the distance, he received no family visits. His family was told to relocate before the trial so as to avoid lynchings and other forms of vengeance, so Stinney was forced to face his trial and death alone.
While the boy did admit to the killings, the activist believes it was a coerced confession. There was no written record of the confession; only the sheriff had said Stinney admitted to the murders. Not only that, but the threat of violence against the young boy and the lack of familial support would have helped intimidate Stinney into taking the blame for something he did not do. A lawyer claims to have heard a detective offer the boy some ice cream after an interview one time, so the police force clearly had a lot of power over Stinney and could virtually make him admit to anything.
The trial lasted one day, and the appointed lawyer was a tax commissioner about to run for South Carolina’s office. Clearly, he was not going to try to create an uproar by proving a black man’s innocence. The defense never called any witness nor did they file an appeal for lack of evidence. No one ever challenged the sheriff’s supposed confession either.
With no record of the trial, it is hard for activists to get this case overturned, but it is clear that the prosecution had no case and that a potentially innocent boy was disadvantaged by the justice system because of the color of his skin.
There are many cases like this that are being combated against and that are trying to clear the name of rightfully innocent blacks. Radio host Tom Joyner was able to clear the name of his two great uncles, and the family of a black maid in Georgia won a pardon after the family pointed out the likelihood of self-defense.
I believe that it is important for people to clear the names of those wrongfully accused because even though the past is in the past and the executed cannot come back to life, these African-Americans should receive the justice they deserve. It is better to get it late than never, and families of those that were persecuted unfairly can clear their family’s name and move on with their lives. It’s also important for furthering the absence of racism in society. By correcting the wrongs of the past, we, as an entire society of many different races, can move forward towards truly being equal and racial separation of all kinds no longer existing.
Below is the link to the article about the boy's conviction and execution if anyone is interested in reading it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22067139@N05/5251556905/
The act of racism happens every day all around us. Not only through words but through peoples actions. The story of Stinney’s limited trial because of his race reminds me a lot of the murder of James Byrd in 1998. He was a 49-year-old African American who was dragged behind a pickup truck for 3 miles before he was decapitated. Numerous aspects of his murder reflect lynching traditions. His death was an act of vicious racism and inspired the hate crimes law to be passed. I find it remarkable how prevalent racism is in today’s society. This murder happened only 13 years ago and you have to wonder will racism ever disappear completely. You mention the importance of clearing names for those who are wrongfully accused and I completely agree with this idea. Racism does turn a blind eye on the law and even force people to believe things with no factual evidence. The only counter argument would be if we were to clear all the names of the falsely convicted we would have to clear the names of everyone and not just African Americans.
ReplyDeleteThis case brings to light two distinct issues: racism and child execution. With the public focusing mostly on the color of Stinney’s skin was, I think the fact that he was only fourteen is easily overlooked. Race aside, the execution of a fourteen year old boy is not justifiable even if the boy was charged as an adult. According to witnesses of the execution, because the state’s adult-sized face-mask hardly fit Stinney, the mask fell down during the electrocution exposing his convulsing face. The shocking image demonstrates a great injustice and cruelty that existed in society in the 1940’s. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roper v. Simmons (2005), the death penalty is now forbidden in all states for those under the age of 18. Well at least we have made some progress. On a different note, the state’s main force driving all of the decisions up to and including the execution were extremely political. The incredibly fast speed of the trial alone illustrates that the majority of the people involved just wanted to get the case over with to avoid any unpopular press. In addition to Stinney’s lawyer having political motives, the governor of South Carolina, Olin Johnston, had numerous opportunities to delay the execution and look into the case more. While he might have wanted to spend more time on the case, he knew it would only lead to political suicide, as he would lose the faith of many of his white constituents. Even though it’s pure speculation, I find it hard to believe the governor approved of what happened to Stinney. Right or wrong, he allowed the trial to move as fast as possible to preserve his political career, and hence George Stinney was dead only 81 days after his alleged crime.
ReplyDelete