14 year old exonerated of murder, 70 years after being executed - Polidicks

[quote]Seventy years after he was executed in South Carolina, George Stinney’s conviction was vacated by a state judge Wednesday on the grounds that he had not received a fair trial. Stinney, a 14-year-old black boy, was arrested in March 1944 for the murder of two white girls in Clarendon County, S.C. In less than three months, he was tried, convicted and put to death. He was the youngest person to be executed in the U.S. in the 20th century. Reports from the execution chamber said he was so small that the jolt of electricity knocked the mask from his face. In a 28-page order, Judge Carmen T. Mullen — who heard testimony on the case in January — did not rule on the merits of the murder charges against Stinney, but found that there were “fundamental, constitutional violations of due process” across the board, Indeed, nothing about Stinney’s case came close to meeting basic constitutional requirements. He was arrested without a warrant and questioned without a lawyer.[/quote] [url]http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/george-stinneys-conviction-tossed-out-70-years-after-execution/?_r=0[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stinney[/url]

Better late than never

Poor kid had to sit on a book to fit into the restraints for the electric chair. Shit like this just goes to show how broken the US legal system used to be towards minorities, and how barbaric execution is.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;46739371]Poor kid had to sit on a book to fit into the restraints for the electric chair. Shit like this just goes to show how broken the US legal system used to be towards minorities, and how barbaric execution is.[/QUOTE] [i]Used[/i] to be?

this is why the death sentence is wrong people have been executed many times before - only to be found innocent afterwards

[QUOTE=J!NX;46739396]this is why the death sentence is wrong people have been executed many times before - only to be found innocent afterwards[/QUOTE] The death sentence should only be used when an extremely heinous crime has been committed and the prosecutor has rock solid evidence imo.

[QUOTE=PolarEventide;46739387][i]Used[/i] to be?[/QUOTE] Yes. Used to be. The legal system today is infinitely better than it was 70 years ago towards minorities.

[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;46739422]The death sentence should only be used when an extremely heinous crime has been committed and the prosecutor has rock solid evidence imo.[/QUOTE] hitler, osama, saddam, etc of course those are VERY extreme examples mass murderers who are unrehabilitatable would be a good fit too

[QUOTE=J!NX;46739396]this is why the death sentence is wrong people have been executed many times before - only to be found innocent afterwards[/QUOTE] This is more of a "We used to be really fucking racist" case.

[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;46739422]The death sentence should only be used when an extremely heinous crime has been committed and the prosecutor has rock solid evidence imo.[/QUOTE] At what point does a murder go from "tame" to "heinous". Is it defined by the amount of bodies or does just one dead person who looks like they really got fucked up justify the death sentence? Wheres the line drawn at?

[QUOTE=J!NX;46739431]hitler, osama, saddam, etc of course those are VERY extreme examples mass murderers who are unrehabilitatable would be a good fit too[/QUOTE] Who's to determine that their condition is incurable, there may be a treatment in the future. IMO, the state shouldn't be allowed to order a citizen's death under any circumstances.

Bigotry at it's finest, Horrifying.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;46739446]At what point does a murder go from "tame" to "heinous". Is it defined by the amount of bodies or does just one dead person who looks like they really got fucked up justify the death sentence? Wheres the line drawn at?[/QUOTE] A standard premeditated murder is tame, while murdering a ton of people and storing their sexed up mutilated bodies in a freezer as a sacrifice to Satan is heinous. This is just an example, but still. Use some imagination.

[QUOTE=J!NX;46739396]this is why the death sentence is wrong people have been executed many times before - only to be found innocent afterwards[/QUOTE] Has any of you read the article? The trial happened in motherfucking 1944. If you think the law system from back then is the same as it is today, you've got ways to go. I'm not taking sides on the death penalty here, but this execution happened in 1944, nowadays, if a 14 years old was convicted to death penalty, I'm sure the whole fucking population would be on the street. Not only that, but I'm about 90% sure that due to the kid's race, who was black back in 1944, didn't exactly face a fair and just trial, wouldn't you agree?

[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;46739422]The death sentence should only be used when an extremely heinous crime has been committed and the prosecutor has rock solid evidence imo.[/QUOTE] the death sentence should not be used, imo.

[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;46739482]A standard premeditated murder is tame, while murdering a ton of people and storing their sexed up mutilated bodies in a freezer as a sacrifice to Satan is heinous. This is just an example, but still. Use some imagination.[/QUOTE] I don't think murder is "tame" under any circumstances. It's also dumb to say that only certain people should be executed because their crimes are deemed "too heinous" as well. Either execute all murderers or get rid of the death penalty all together.

[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;46739482]A standard premeditated murder is tame, while murdering a ton of people and storing their sexed up mutilated bodies in a freezer as a sacrifice to Satan is heinous. This is just an example, but still. Use some imagination.[/QUOTE] So essentially, the grounds for execution are based on the number of people killed and the method? Not actual concrete calculation or processes, just the opinions of a group of people? And you don't see anything wrong in that in the slightest?

When talking about the death penalty, you need to take people's psychological profiles into account. There's no sense in "rehabilitating" a sociopath/psychopath.

[QUOTE=Feuver;46739485]Has any of you read the article? The trial happened in motherfucking 1944. If you think the law system from back then is the same as it is today, you've got ways to go. I'm not taking sides on the death penalty here, but this execution happened in 1944, nowadays, if a 14 years old was convicted to death penalty, I'm sure the whole fucking population would be on the street. Not only that, but I'm about 90% sure that due to the kid's race, who was black back in 1944, didn't exactly face a fair and just trial, wouldn't you agree?[/QUOTE] I don't see how that matters, because people have also been killed in modern times despite later being found innocent

[QUOTE=Korova;46739496]When talking about the death penalty, you need to take people's psychological profiles into account. There's no sense in "rehabilitating" a sociopath/psychopath.[/QUOTE] Check out this guy with no credentials.

[QUOTE=Korova;46739496]When talking about the death penalty, you need to take people's psychological profiles into account. There's no sense in "rehabilitating" a sociopath/psychopath.[/QUOTE] Because every sociopath and psychopath is a murderer, eh?

[QUOTE=snapshot32;46739490]So essentially, the grounds for execution are based on the number of people killed and the method? Not actual concrete calculation or processes, just the opinions of a group of people? And you don't see anything wrong in that in the slightest?[/QUOTE] Maybe if you read my earlier post instead of getting riled up, I said the death sentence should only be used when the prosecutor has [B] rock solid[/B] evidence. I never said the common people should decide whether the type of murder is heinous or not. Murdering a lot of people and defiling their bodies is a lot different than some guy shooting another guy over some issues they have with each other. [editline]18th December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ccg;46739489]I don't think murder is "tame" under any circumstances. It's also dumb to say that only certain people should be executed because their crimes are deemed "too heinous" as well. Either execute all murderers or get rid of the death penalty all together.[/QUOTE] Okay so by that logic, even accidental homicides should have the death penalty as the default sentence.

[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;46739516]Maybe if you read my earlier post instead of getting riled up, I said the death sentence should only be used when the prosecutor has [B] rock solid[/B] evidence. I never said the common people should decide whether the type of murder is heinous or not. Murdering a lot of people and defiling their bodies is a lot different than some guy shooting another guy over some issues they have with each other.[/QUOTE] Irregardless of the 'rock solidness' of evidence you don't see anything concerning about having a group of people or a single person, no matter how qualified deciding who lives and dies? No person is perfect, so in my mind, having someone order death on another person is idiotic.

[QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;46739514]Because every sociopath and psychopath is a murderer, eh?[/QUOTE] No, I'm saying that there's no sense in rehabilitating someone that murdered someone and is a sociopath/psychopath.

[QUOTE=Korova;46739535]No, I'm saying that there's no sense in rehabilitating someone that murdered someone and is a sociopath/psychopath.[/QUOTE] Why not? Why is it ok to rehabilitate somebody else, but not a sociopath or psychopath?

[QUOTE=Tasm;46739423]Yes. Used to be. The legal system today is infinitely better than it was 70 years ago towards minorities.[/QUOTE] His statement implies that the legal system is no longer "broken towards minorities."

[QUOTE=snapshot32;46739507]Check out this guy with no credentials.[/QUOTE] So if I had a piece of paper saying that I am some sort of investigator/doctor, my point would be any more valid? Explain the logic behind "rehabilitating" someone who is a psychopath and a murderer, someone who is prone to erratic violent/amoral behavior and has the inability to sympathize with other human beings.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;46739528]Irregardless of the 'rock solidness' of evidence you don't see anything concerning about having a group of people or a single person, no matter how qualified deciding who lives and dies? No person is perfect, so in my mind, having someone order death on another person is idiotic.[/QUOTE] No not really since that's kinda the basis of our entire justice system. I'm guessing you also think the sandy hook shooter also deserves to live, even after murdering a bunch of innocent children. I guess Hitler should have been allowed to live too because everyone deserves to live even after doing something unimaginably horrendous.

[QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;46739539]Why not? Why is it ok to rehabilitate somebody else, but not a sociopath or psychopath?[/QUOTE] Because the clinical definition of the term is something you can not cure. You can't even expect them to realize jail sucks and not to kill people when they get out because [quote=the dictionary]a person with a psychopathic personality, which manifests as amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity,[b]failure to learn from experience[/b][/quote]

[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;46739516] Okay so by that logic, even accidental homicides should have the death penalty as the default sentence.[/QUOTE] Uh, no, because they were accidents. Don't be a smartass.