Talk:George Stinney

This Article is POV

According to the article, the judgment "exonerating" Stinney acknowledges that he may have committed the crime. Unless someone thinks that his race, or that of the victims, gives him a free pass to commit murder and escape proper punishment for the crime . . . John Paul Parks (talk) 04:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Hardly anyone here thinks that his race gives him a "free pass." But try to think critically here. Try to actually think about the facts. For one thing, the key words are "may have." No one knows for certain if he actually did it or not, which is disturbing, that we still have no idea if he was actually guilty. For the second thing, a 14-year-old black boy, a child, in the Jim Crow South, was accused (by white adult officials) of murdering two white girls. Stinney did not have his family or a lawyer with him at the time of the supposed "confession," no one was present at this "confession" except for the officials who already believed he was guilty when they brought him in, this child was given ice cream as an incentive to confess, and the confession no longer exists for us to actually view. His trial lasted for two hours, and his jury deliberated for 10 minutes before sending him to death row. When the governor turned down Stinney's plea for clemency, his reasoning was based on incorrect information, including supposed necrophilia and other horrendous deeds that made the crime sound even worse than it already was, which the medical examiner in the case said had never happened. And this is not even going into the physical evidence. Stinney was small for his age, at 5 feet and 90 pounds, and he supposedly bashed two skulls in with a 25-pound railroad spike. As someone who is as tall as Stinney and weighs slightly more than he does, I can say that would be just about impossible. And you don't see any cause to question the proceedings or Stinney's guilt, given those details? No cause at all?

It might benefit you to look at this case with less bias and defensiveness. Making excuses for an obvious injustice is never a good look. I would feel the same way if it were a 14-year-old white child who had gone through this, and it would be just as much of an injustice, but let's be honest; a 14-year-old white child never would have gone through this. I would know, because I have researched it, and it has never happened in the US. And given his age, at 14, "proper punishment" is very subjective. Considering that 14-year-olds are (and have always been) children, why would it be "proper" for the state to execute a 14-year-old boy for committing murder, even if he were guilty? The death penalty exists to punish adults, not children. South Carolina really stretched themselves thin to excuse executing this boy in 1944, or else the courts would not have reversed the conviction in 2014.

I also want to point out that formerly, you had a sentence in the article saying that it was "not unusual" back then for people to be executed 83 days after committing their crimes; you included the example of Giuseppe Zangara, a white man who was executed 34 days after committing a murder. Comparing the execution of a political assassin to a small-town murderer is ignorant. Zangara, who was a dark-skinned Italian (a group that faced biases in the legal system as well, albeit not as bad as blacks in the South), and was also very clearly deranged, attempted to assassinate President Roosevelt. He assassinated the mayor of Chicago instead. Given those details, of course the state would rush to kill him quickly. On top of that, unlike Stinney, he never attempted to appeal or even remotely fight his death sentence. Stinney had no appeal, but he asked the governor for clemency, and it still only took 83 days before he was executed. And on top of that, they were in different states with different legal systems (Florida versus South Carolina). You were comparing apples to oranges. Your example was a false equivalency. It had absolutely no place in this article. I removed it. Afddiary (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"But let's be honest; a 14-year-old white child never would have gone through this". True. A white boy is multiple times less likely to commit a crime like this. Low activity MAOA allele, high impulsivity, intellectual impairment are less prevalent in the white population. 37.219.37.204 (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

---

George Stinney appears to be guilty based on the following: 1. Deputy Newman's interrogation notes. Here is the full text of his notes (which Wikipeadia , apparently to serve their own agenda to re-write this incident) has refused to include: Deputy Newman's Interrogation notes: '"I was notified that the bodies had been found. I went down to where the bodies were at. I found Mary Emma she was rite [sic] at the edge of the ditch with four or five wounds on her head, on the other side of the ditch the Binnicker girl, were [sic] laying there with 4 or 5 wounds in her head, the bicycle the girls had were beside the little Binnicker girl. By information I received I arrested a boy by the name of George Stinney ... he then made a confession and told me where a piece of iron about 15 inches long were, he said he put it in a ditch about 6 feet from the bicycle which was lying in the ditch."'

2. The police found the murder weapon - apparently a 1 lbs railroad spike - because George told them what it was and where it was. Only the true murderer would know what the murder weapon was and where it was.

3. The NAACP refused to get involved in this case. Why? The NAACP also never proclaimed that George was innocent and/or that he was being railroaded by racist southern white people.

4. George's parents never proclaimed their son was innocent.

5. George never proclaimed his innocence. Never.

6. The S.Carolina Governor was petitioned by the NAACP to commute the sentence and he agreed to look at all the facts of the case. He concluded, as the jury did, George was guilty, and the penalty for George's atrocity - consistent with S.Carolina's law - was death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.93.158.26 (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Use of "wrongly" convicted

An IP editor and a newly-created editor (my guess being the same as the prior IP editor) repeatedly insert "falsely" (albeit sometimes misspelled) or "wrongly" into the opening sentence, e.g. "...was a 14 year old African-American wrongly convicted of murder...".

His edit is being continually reverted. I don't approve of the edit-warring approach, but given the 2014 case where the circuit court vacated Stinney's conviction, it doesn't sound like POV to say "wrongly convicted" in the lede; it seems to accurately reflect that his conviction was recognized as wrong, and vacated. Can anyone articulate what the objections are? TJRC (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

You'll likely have an ongoing difficulty preventing insertions like that. People have their own agendas to push on articles like this, TJRC. They need to put sentiments aside and look at sterile facts. (They possibly also believe he "confessed for ice cream" and I'm sure "compelling evidence" exists to support that substantiation.) Look at the insertions of "child" etc. smattered across the article. In the lede: "convicted of murder as a result of a racially-biased and discriminatory trial" etc. Hardly NPOV. Yes the racial aspect, and lack of a fair trial (let alone execution at age 14), is necessary, but to use wording almost as if to attempt to wrench tears from the new reader. To me, it subverts Wikipedias reputation of impartiality. His conviction was VACATED, and rightly so.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me add that the current introduction ("wrongfully convicted at age 14 of the murder") to me reads as if he didn't murder the girls. I think it should be rewritten to reflect that his conviction was vacated, but that his guilt has not been determined. Ornilnas (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe "wrongfully convicted" usually refers to someone who did not commit a crime, but was convicted for it nonetheless. See e.g. List of wrongful convictions in the United States:

"This list includes people who have been legally exonerated, including people whose convictions have been overturned and have not been retried, as well as people who have not been formally exonerated but are widely considered to be factually innocent."

This definition focuses on the factual innocence of the accused, not the legal status of their conviction. I agree that "He was wrongfully convicted" could refer to the legal status in some cases, but the current introduction states that Stinney was "wrongfully convicted of the murders of" two specific victims. I read this to say that he did not commit the murders, which has not been established; it has only been determined that he was not given a fair trial (and perhaps a "wrongful conviction" if you phrase it carefully). I edited out the "wrongfully" and was reverted -- but now I see that TJRC reverted his own reversion, so I'll just leave the above as my reason for removing the word. Ornilnas (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't like the use of the phrase "unfair trial" in the Lede, as the word "unfair" is a layman's concept and not a legal one. I also agree with the sentiments of most of the other people here; that the Article should either decide that Stinney was convicted due to a flawed legal process (and then explain the speific nature of that), or that Stinney was innocent, and therefore was "wrongfully convicted". However I can also see how a flawed legal process results in a "wrongful" conviction, even if the person accused actually did the crime. I just think it's important to make certain that the Article is clear on the difference between the two. There's a difference between convicting and executing an innocent person, and convicting someone due to a flawed legal process. The Article should clearly differentiate between these two conditions.Tym Whittier (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

We as Wikipedia editors really are in no position to decide whether he was innocent. Even the judge who vacated the conviction said she couldn't make that determination. The most we can do, I think, is report on the finding that the trial and related processes were found to be flawed and did not measure up to the requirements of due process. The challenge is coming up with wording that gets that across clearly to a lay reader. Neither "wrongfully convicted" and "unfair trial" seem to come up short as discussed above, but I'm not sure I've got a better wording; especially for the lede, which is inherently simplified. TJRC (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Renewing discussion

We're seeing another spate of editors adding "wrongfully" or the like to the beginning. I'm sympathetic to this. If you read it baldly -- "... was an African American youth who was convicted of murdering two white girls..." -- the opening sentence gives no hint that he may have been innocent. It goes into it a couple paragraphs later, but that's burying the lead.

I understand we don't want to say "wrongfully convicted"; even the judge who vacated the conviction expressly declined to go that far. But I feel it needs something to capture what is a big part about the controversy over this case.

I'm thinking "... was an African American youth who was convicted, in a proceeding later vacated as an unfair trial, of murdering two white girls..."

Thoughts? It's an accurate statement, and gets it out right in front, where I think it should be. I would be WP:BOLD and just make the edit, but knowing it's a controversial area, wanted to post here first. TJRC (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, that gives a much more accurate impression. Ornilnas (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Since there's been no objection in more than ten days, I've made that edit. TJRC (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Confused jumble

I really wanted to understand this case, but the article's a confused jumbled that seems to say everything twice. EEng 18:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

His injuries after execution

The article mentions that he had one eye missing, smoking teeth and a burnt scalp. I have been unable to find this in the references stated.

Can this be confirmed as true? GoodKingMort (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)