4 ms·

It took 10 minutes to convict a 14-year-old and 70 years to exonerate him (2014)

38 points by EndXA 7y ago

crimsonalucard 7y ago
Who gets thrown in jail for such a crime? Who is responsible for this?
- nkrisc 7y ago
  Everyone responsible is probably dead or nearly so.
- deogeo 7y ago
  They're most likely all already dead.
- ninth_ant 7y ago
  Respectfully, those are the wrong questions to ask. Instead: What injustices are happening today that we tolerate as part of the status quo? What can we do to ensure - today and tomorrow — that innocents are not preyed upon because it is easy and convenient to look the other way?
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    Respectfully disagree. such questions are relevant. No system is perfect and every system can be exploited to serve the prejudices of individuals. Everything from the super rich exploiting tax loop holes to putting innocent people on death row. Not only one must close the loop hole, but the exploiter must be punished as an example. Part of ensuring things is to enforce consequences. The more extreme the crime the more extreme the consequence. The consequence serves two roles. One role is to help the criminal learn, but more importantly it's to help other people learn that you cannot commit such heinous acts without repercussions. Without consequences no system of enforcement will work. What this article describes was never tolerated by society. It was a loop hole that when exploited had little consequence.
    - TheNorthman 7y ago
      > One role is to help the criminal learn Do you believe that punishment is an ideal way to learn? How do you imagine this `punishment` to be carried out [0]? Assuming you're American: the primary systems prisons have been modeled after have been the Auburn system and the Separate system and both of these models have a pretty heavy recidivism. I'm danish and our prisons are mostly built on the premise of rehabilitation and have attempted to shy away from what was perceived as "meaningless" oppression (although this is slowly changing towards a more Kantian view of punishment, something the general media portrays as being bad). In contrast to the American system ours is one of relatively low recidivism. [0]: My question might seem snarky, it's really not. From my perspective "punishment" is rarely discussed, so I'm genuinely curious regarding, not so much the justification that much is clear, but the intended "carrying out" of said punishment is interesting to me.
      - crimsonalucard 7y ago
        >Do you believe that punishment is an ideal way to learn? How do you imagine this `punishment` to be carried out [0]? Clearly punishment works to deter both humans and animals from doing certain things. This has been shown to be true in experimentation. Additionally the threat of punishment is by far more important. However there are many instances where punishment can serve to do nothing or even make things worse. In the general case this is not true, but there are many specific instances where it is true. One example is the drug addict. You cannot clean up a drug addict by punishing him. Or even less clear is how do you stop a career criminal from doing the only thing he has known how to do for his entire life? A punishment will not suffice in both cases. BUT the punishment must exist. I'm not saying that the American System is the way to go. Clearly from the data it is not. But I am saying that the question of consequences must be enforced. The consequence must be negative as well. Additionally to get to your point, the punishment probably shouldn't be so extreme as to have detrimental effects, additionally programs for rehabilitation can be implemented as well for effectiveness. Even in the danish system, there must be negative consequences for negative actions in order for a society to function.... there is no way around it. Find me an example of a society that has zero punishment for criminals that still functions and I can probably change my mind.
- briandear 7y ago
  It was 75 years ago.
nkrisc 7y ago
I've always wondered, in cases like this: did they actually believe he did it? Maybe they did, motivated by pure racism and bigotry despite any evidence? But if they knew he probably didn't do it (but decided to scapegoat him anyway), weren't they ever thinking about the real killer who has presumably gone free, with the potential to strike the community again? Maybe they knew they stood no chance of actually figuring out who did? Or maybe they knew who really did it, but corrupt officials were eager to protect them and blame an easy target.
- romaaeterna 7y ago
  From the article: At the time a law enforcement officer named H.S. Newman wrote in a handwritten statement: “I arrested a boy by the name of George Stinney. He then made a confession and told me where to find a piece of iron about 15 inches long. He said he put it in a ditch about six feet from the bicycle.” Few other documents from that time exist. James Gamble, whose father was the sheriff at the time, told the Herald in 2003 he was in the back seat with Stinney when his father drove the boy to prison. “There wasn’t ever any doubt about him being guilty,” he said. “He was real talkative about it. He said, ‘I’m real sorry. I didn’t want to kill them girls.’ “
  - nkrisc 7y ago
    Yes thank you, I read it. I was speaking generally ("cases like this"), as there are many similar cases from the era. And these are the cases that actually went to trial, instead of ending in mob justice. Even in this case, if the concession was coerced, that still means the real killer remained free. Now whether the interviewer one they were coercing a false confession or not is not clear. But either way getting a false confession is pretty counterproductive to actually solving a case, and bad police work. Unless your real goal is not the truth, but to blame the "right" person, regardless of guilt.
rumanator 7y ago
Wikipedia has an informative article about the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stinney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stinney

38 points by EndXA 7y ago

crimsonalucard 7y ago

Who gets thrown in jail for such a crime? Who is responsible for this?

nkrisc 7y ago
Everyone responsible is probably dead or nearly so.
deogeo 7y ago
They're most likely all already dead.
ninth_ant 7y ago
Respectfully, those are the wrong questions to ask. Instead: What injustices are happening today that we tolerate as part of the status quo? What can we do to ensure - today and tomorrow — that innocents are not preyed upon because it is easy and convenient to look the other way?
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  Respectfully disagree. such questions are relevant. No system is perfect and every system can be exploited to serve the prejudices of individuals. Everything from the super rich exploiting tax loop holes to putting innocent people on death row. Not only one must close the loop hole, but the exploiter must be punished as an example. Part of ensuring things is to enforce consequences. The more extreme the crime the more extreme the consequence. The consequence serves two roles. One role is to help the criminal learn, but more importantly it's to help other people learn that you cannot commit such heinous acts without repercussions. Without consequences no system of enforcement will work. What this article describes was never tolerated by society. It was a loop hole that when exploited had little consequence.
  - TheNorthman 7y ago
    > One role is to help the criminal learn Do you believe that punishment is an ideal way to learn? How do you imagine this `punishment` to be carried out [0]? Assuming you're American: the primary systems prisons have been modeled after have been the Auburn system and the Separate system and both of these models have a pretty heavy recidivism. I'm danish and our prisons are mostly built on the premise of rehabilitation and have attempted to shy away from what was perceived as "meaningless" oppression (although this is slowly changing towards a more Kantian view of punishment, something the general media portrays as being bad). In contrast to the American system ours is one of relatively low recidivism. [0]: My question might seem snarky, it's really not. From my perspective "punishment" is rarely discussed, so I'm genuinely curious regarding, not so much the justification that much is clear, but the intended "carrying out" of said punishment is interesting to me.
    - crimsonalucard 7y ago
      >Do you believe that punishment is an ideal way to learn? How do you imagine this `punishment` to be carried out [0]? Clearly punishment works to deter both humans and animals from doing certain things. This has been shown to be true in experimentation. Additionally the threat of punishment is by far more important. However there are many instances where punishment can serve to do nothing or even make things worse. In the general case this is not true, but there are many specific instances where it is true. One example is the drug addict. You cannot clean up a drug addict by punishing him. Or even less clear is how do you stop a career criminal from doing the only thing he has known how to do for his entire life? A punishment will not suffice in both cases. BUT the punishment must exist. I'm not saying that the American System is the way to go. Clearly from the data it is not. But I am saying that the question of consequences must be enforced. The consequence must be negative as well. Additionally to get to your point, the punishment probably shouldn't be so extreme as to have detrimental effects, additionally programs for rehabilitation can be implemented as well for effectiveness. Even in the danish system, there must be negative consequences for negative actions in order for a society to function.... there is no way around it. Find me an example of a society that has zero punishment for criminals that still functions and I can probably change my mind.
briandear 7y ago
It was 75 years ago.

nkrisc 7y ago

I've always wondered, in cases like this: did they actually believe he did it? Maybe they did, motivated by pure racism and bigotry despite any evidence? But if they knew he probably didn't do it (but decided to scapegoat him anyway), weren't they ever thinking about the real killer who has presumably gone free, with the potential to strike the community again? Maybe they knew they stood no chance of actually figuring out who did? Or maybe they knew who really did it, but corrupt officials were eager to protect them and blame an easy target.

romaaeterna 7y ago
From the article: At the time a law enforcement officer named H.S. Newman wrote in a handwritten statement: “I arrested a boy by the name of George Stinney. He then made a confession and told me where to find a piece of iron about 15 inches long. He said he put it in a ditch about six feet from the bicycle.” Few other documents from that time exist. James Gamble, whose father was the sheriff at the time, told the Herald in 2003 he was in the back seat with Stinney when his father drove the boy to prison. “There wasn’t ever any doubt about him being guilty,” he said. “He was real talkative about it. He said, ‘I’m real sorry. I didn’t want to kill them girls.’ “
- nkrisc 7y ago
  Yes thank you, I read it. I was speaking generally ("cases like this"), as there are many similar cases from the era. And these are the cases that actually went to trial, instead of ending in mob justice. Even in this case, if the concession was coerced, that still means the real killer remained free. Now whether the interviewer one they were coercing a false confession or not is not clear. But either way getting a false confession is pretty counterproductive to actually solving a case, and bad police work. Unless your real goal is not the truth, but to blame the "right" person, regardless of guilt.

rumanator 7y ago

Wikipedia has an informative article about the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stinney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stinney