Teen Exonerated 70 Years After Execution

[Themius]

I'm 99% sure that it was racism. But that doesnt mean it was. He shouldnt have been executed based off of not enough eviden/due process. Does not mean he was without a doubt innocent though.

The lack of due process probably had to do with him being a black person in the 40s in the south at a time when blacks were second class citizens and systemic racism was a very prominent thing.

[ellieg]

The lack of due process probably had to do with him being a black person in the 40s in the south at a time when blacks were second class citizens and systemic racism was a very prominent thing.

I'm pretty sure thats the case. Doesn't mean he was innocent or guilty though.

[Easo]

Some people there should be honest.
It realy is 99% likely that the reason for execution was racism.

[Themius]

Some people there should be honest.
It realy is 99% likely that the reason for execution was racism.

We are after all talking about a time when people could lynch blacks and get little or often no time. So i don't get why some people are even debating.

[Tinykong]

1944... the south... they put a 14 year old to death...

So, you're just being racist then?

[Rukentuts]

Exonerated 70 years afterwards? thats a bit of a joke but hey.

The joke is that there are actually people that shrug this off as an acceptable casualty to keep the death penalty.

[Kurioxan]

The joke is that there are actually people that shrug this off as an acceptable casualty to keep the death penalty.

Regardless of death penalty, too many people get jailed while innocent, it only benefits criminals as the cases are closed and no longer investigated. Its a double-sided tragedy

[Crissi]

So, you're just being racist then?

The trial took a dya, the jury was all white, the confession had a high chance of being coerced, sketchy evidence, and the death penalty took 10 min to decide on. In 1944 South Carolina. If you can find me a similar case of it happening to a white person, I'll concede it not being a case of racism. Because if you deny 1944 South Carolina was racist, you have a few screws loose.

[Rukentuts]

The trial took a dya, the jury was all white, the confession had a high chance of being coerced, sketchy evidence, and the death penalty took 10 min to decide on. In 1944 South Carolina. If you can find me a similar case of it happening to a white person, I'll concede it not being a case of racism. Because if you deny 1944 South Carolina was racist, you have a few screws loose.

Was all white juries still mandated in SC at this time? Because if so the racism argument is entirely moot, as the trial was based off it from the getgo.

[Tinykong]

The trial took a dya, the jury was all white, the confession had a high chance of being coerced, sketchy evidence, and the death penalty took 10 min to decide on. In 1944 South Carolina. If you can find me a similar case of it happening to a white person, I'll concede it not being a case of racism. Because if you deny 1944 South Carolina was racist, you have a few screws loose.

What part of my post denied racism in the south existed?

You're being equally racist by making this accusation without having all the facts based simply on the race of the jury.

[cubby]

Regardless of the racial basis, the desire for scapegoating, or the defendant's supposed innocence, without evidence to prove it was someone else, the judge really has no claim to overturn the conviction.

I've never seen so much wrongness in one sentence.

[Crissi]

What part of my post denied racism in the south existed?

You're being equally racist by making this accusation without having all the facts based simply on the race of the jury.

Not JUST on the race of the jury Did you read the rest of what I said? a one day trial, a (high chance) coerced confession, sketchy evidence, 10 minutes to decide on the death penalty, and a defense attourny that didnt want to do his job.

and racist against who? whites? Because thats laughable. I call BS where I see it, regardless of the race involved.

[Themius]

What part of my post denied racism in the south existed?

You're being equally racist by making this accusation without having all the facts based simply on the race of the jury.

Wait hold on we are racist for pointing out that 1944 south carolina was heavily racist and likely had a heavy part to play?

- - - Updated - - -

Regardless of the racial basis, the desire for scapegoating, or the defendant's supposed innocence, without evidence to prove it was someone else, the judge really has no claim to overturn the conviction.

I skipped over this post when I read this page.

Having no one else to blame doesn't = our hands are tied we must put away the person we have in front of us, regardless.

[Rukentuts]

Nobody has answered my question. Was all white juries, even by implementation if not by law, in use in South Carolina then?

[Tinykong]

Wait hold on we are racist for pointing out that 1944 south carolina was heavily racist and likely had a heavy part to play?

Nope, and that wasn't what was said. Claiming that this kid was executed because the jury was white, without having any of the facts (the article presented none) is racist.

racist against who? whites? Because thats laughable.

Yeah, you're just a racist.

[Crissi]

Nope, and that wasn't what was said. Claiming that this kid was executed because the jury was white, without having any of the facts (the article presented none) is racist.



Yeah, you're just a racist.

Thats the most hillarious thing I've been called yet. Its a good thing what you say isn't true in the slightest, seeing as I'm taking the ENTIRE thing into account and not just the god damn jury's race.

[Themius]

Nobody has answered my question. Was all white juries, even by implementation if not by law, in use in South Carolina then?

difficulty finding that, am finding more cases of blacks put to death by all white juries just to be exonerated in death.


SC did have jim crow laws though and blacks weren't allowed to be on juries.

[Tinykong]

Thats the most hillarious thing I've been called yet. Its a good thing what you say isn't true in the slightest, seeing as I'm taking the ENTIRE thing into account and not just the god damn jury's race.

No, you're not. You don't have any facts, just a prejudicial opinion about what people from that time and place might have been like.

Like I said: racist.

Infracted

[Galathir]

What I am interested in is if, as the families of the murdered girls say, cases like this should be left alone?

I am pretty sure George's family, who probaly had been shunned by the people around them for what the boy supposedly did, would disagree.

[Themius]

Nope, and that wasn't what was said. Claiming that this kid was executed because the jury was white, without having any of the facts (the article presented none) is racist.



Yeah, you're just a racist.

The kid was executed because the jury was all white in a mostly white racist era in a jim crow state, a state that had lynchings no one bothered to deal with.

There are several cases of blacks being put to death by all white juries without evidence and then later being exonerated.