Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => Haley Center Basement => Topic started by: WiregrassTiger on January 21, 2014, 11:30:33 AM
-
If justice could possibly still happen, I would understand. If the boy's name could possibly be cleared, I could understand. How can that happen without any physical evidence or eyewitness testimony?
It looks like a complete waste of taxpayer money unless there is some compelling evidence that isn't brought up in this article.
"Supporters of George Stinney plan to argue Tuesday that there wasn't enough evidence to find him guilty in 1944 of killing " is an impossible argument to win. That ship has sailed. If they want to prove that he was wrongfully convicted, that's another thing but he def was found guilty--regardless of what the death penalty for a 14 yr old seems like for us today.
http://news.yahoo.com/trial-sought-sc-boy-14-executed-1944-172035983.html (http://news.yahoo.com/trial-sought-sc-boy-14-executed-1944-172035983.html)
SUMTER, S.C. (AP) — A 14-year-old boy executed by South Carolina nearly 70 years ago is finally getting another day in court.
Supporters of George Stinney plan to argue Tuesday that there wasn't enough evidence to find him guilty in 1944 of killing a 7-year-old and an 11-year-old girl. The black teen was found guilty of killing the white girls in a trial that lasted less than a day in the tiny Southern mill town of Alcolu, separated, as most were in those days, by race.
Nearly all the evidence, including a confession that was central to the case against Stinney, has disappeared, along with the transcript of the trial. Lawyers working on behalf of Stinney's family have sworn statements from his relatives accounting for his time the day the girls were killed, from a cellmate saying he never confessed to the crime and from a pathologist disputing the findings of the autopsy done on the victims.
The novel decision whether to give an executed man a new trial will be in the hands of Circuit Judge Carmen Mullen. Experts say it is a longshot. South Carolina law has a high bar for new trials based on evidence that could have been discovered at the time of the trial. Also, the legal system in the state before segregation often found defendants guilty with evidence that would be considered scant today. If Mullen finds in favor of Stinney, it could open the door for hundreds of other appeals.
But the Stinney case is unique in one way. At 14, he's the youngest person executed in the United States in the past 100 years. Even in 1944, there was an outcry over putting someone so young in the electric chair. Newspaper accounts said the straps in the chair didn't fit around his 95-pound body and an electrode was too big for his leg.
Stinney's supporters said racism, common in the Jim Crow era South, meant deputies in Clarendon County did little investigation after they decided Stinney was the prime suspect. They said he was pulled from his parents and interrogated without a lawyer.
School board member George Frierson heard stories about Stinney growing up in the same mill town and has spent a decade fighting to get him exonerated. He swallowed hard as he said he hardly slept before the day he has waited 10 years to see.
"Somebody that didn't kill someone is finally getting his day in court," Frierson said.
Back in 1944, Stinney was likely the only black person in the courtroom during his one-day trial. On Tuesday, the prosecutor arguing against him will be Ernest "Chip" Finney III, the son of South Carolina's first black Chief Justice. Finney said last month he won't preset any evidence against Stinney at the hearing, but if a new trial is granted, he will ask for time to conduct a new investigation.
What that investigation might find is not known. South Carolina did not have a statewide law enforcement unit to help smaller jurisdictions until 1947. Newspaper stories about Stinney's trial offer little clue whether any evidence was introduced beyond the teen's confession and an autopsy report. Some people around Alcolu said bloody clothes were taken from Stinney's home, but never introduced at trial because of his confession. No record of those clothes exists.
Relatives of one of the girls killed, 11-year-old Betty Binnicker, have recently spoke out as well, saying Stinney was known around town as a bully who threatened to fight or kill people who came too close to the grass where he grazed the family cow.
It isn't known if the judge will rule Tuesday, or take time to come to her decision. Stinney's supporters said if the motion for a new trial fails, they will ask the state to pardon him.
-
Dabbie weeps for us all.
-
I saw this and asked, "Why now?"
it seems that as we move forward, there are those that still want to look back and create dissent in race relations. Many black folks are already conditioned that any kind of atrocity committed against a human being in American history only happened to blacks. Why fuel the fire? Anyone with half a brain knows that our justice system was not the best during the first to mid 20 century. And I know it would just blow some folks' minds to know that most of the atrocities in the justice system were perpetrated against, gasp, white people! There were poor people all over the US that got a raw deal, not just blacks in the south. Hell, there were poor white people in the south that got a raw deal.
So why just stir up more tension? As long as we allow people like this to stir up racial divide, we will not move forward. This is not, and will not be, about justice. It is only about race.
-
I saw this and asked, "Why now?"
it seems that as we move forward, there are those that still want to look back and create dissent in race relations. Many black folks are already conditioned that any kind of atrocity committed against a human being in American history only happened to blacks. Why fuel the fire? Anyone with half a brain knows that our justice system was not the best during the first to mid 20 century. And I know it would just blow some folks' minds to know that most of the atrocities in the justice system were perpetrated against, gasp, white people! There were poor people all over the US that got a raw deal, not just blacks in the south. Hell, there were poor white people in the south that got a raw deal.
So why just stir up more tension? As long as we allow people like this to stir up racial divide, we will not move forward. This is not, and will not be, about justice. It is only about race.
While I agree with the point that you are making; to try and justify that some whites were treated just as bad as some blacks is ridiculous...
-
In junior high, I had some black kids beat me up and steal my lunch money.
Those girls were rough.
-
While I agree with the point that you are making; to try and justify that some whites were treated just as bad as some blacks is ridiculous...
It is not ridiculous. This country is a lot bigger than just the south and the plight of blacks. Did it go on? Of course it did, but all over the country there were people being treated poorly. It may have been for different reasons, but that does not make it any less real. You and those like you have been conditioned that anytime race is involved, it automatically becomes a greater travesty. Tragedy involving a human life is tragedy, no more, no less. There is no racial ownership of it. To act like there is, is to ignore anyone else who endured such tragedy.
And the only reason to bring this up now is to rile racial tensions.
Just where have you been the last 2 years? Has not even the Trayvon Martin incident given you a clue as to the reasons for these types of things. Attention and racial division are all these are for. There is no justice being served or sought after here.
-
It is not ridiculous. This country is a lot bigger than just the south and the plight of blacks. Did it go on? Of course it did, but all over the country there were people being treated poorly. It may have been for different reasons, but that does not make it any less real. You and those like you have been conditioned that anytime race is involved, it automatically becomes a greater travesty. Tragedy involving a human life is tragedy, no more, no less. There is no racial ownership of it. To act like there is, is to ignore anyone else who endured such tragedy.
And the only reason to bring this up now is to rile racial tensions.
Just where have you been the last 2 years? Has not even the Trayvon Martin incident given you a clue as to the reasons for these types of things. Attention and racial division are all these are for. There is no justice being served or sought after here.
If you knew me or my views, you would think it is funny that you are telling me that...
Dude...I understand where you are coming from...
But I also know that white people weren't treated wrong because they were white, and for you to imply that if someone else was mistreated, then it equates to what ALL black people went through is wrong.
But damn...that shit was a long time ago, it is what it is, and there is no excuses anymore...
-
If you knew me or my views, you would think it is funny that you are telling me that...
Dude...I understand where you are coming from...
But I also know that white people weren't treated wrong because they were white, and for you to imply that if someone else was mistreated, then it equates to what ALL black people went through is wrong.
But damn...that shit was a long time ago, it is what it is, and there is no excuses anymore...
Exactly. It's time we move on and make sure that justice serves everyone. Every time we bring something like this back up, it creates nothing but anger. Even if the case is reopened, there is no way the decision will be reverses. ALL of the evidence is gone. The only witnesses left are his family. The only logical result will be the same, and that will do nothing but piss off a lot of people who never knew this happened in the first place.
That is why my diatribe had more to do with answering the question "why".
-
Ya'll all be racist. We want that boy name EXFOLIATED!!
-
Ya'll all be racist. We want that boy name EXFOLIATED!!
Leave it be!
-
I know how hard it is to be a woman, especially a black woman.
-
I saw this and asked, "Why now?"
it seems that as we move forward, there are those that still want to look back and create dissent in race relations. Many black folks are already conditioned that any kind of atrocity committed against a human being in American history only happened to blacks. Why fuel the fire? Anyone with half a brain knows that our justice system was not the best during the first to mid 20 century. And I know it would just blow some folks' minds to know that most of the atrocities in the justice system were perpetrated against, gasp, white people! There were poor people all over the US that got a raw deal, not just blacks in the south. Hell, there were poor white people in the south that got a raw deal.
So why just stir up more tension? As long as we allow people like this to stir up racial divide, we will not move forward. This is not, and will not be, about justice. It is only about race.
We have this little thing called a justice system. If someone has the ability to challenge a conviction from the past or bring a civil suit based on a wrongful conviction from the past, then they have that legal ability regardless of race. Even if their only reason for challenging the conviction or bringing suit is to play the race card, they still have that ability. We can't offer a legal remedy for wrongful convictions, but then say, "Nope! You blacks are playing the race card too often and trying to rub these wrongful convictions in our face...no more legal reviews for you."
-
We have this little thing called a justice system. If someone has the ability to challenge a conviction from the past or bring a civil suit based on a wrongful conviction from the past, then they have that legal ability regardless of race. Even if their only reason for challenging the conviction or bringing suit is to play the race card, they still have that ability. We can't offer a legal remedy for wrongful convictions, but then say, "Nope! You blacks are playing the race card too often and trying to rub these wrongful convictions in our face...no more legal reviews for you."
In other words "the good old days"
-
In other words "the good old days"
(http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/0909/the-good-ol-days-demotivational-poster-1253650410.jpg)
-
(http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/0909/the-good-ol-days-demotivational-poster-1253650410.jpg)
AGREED!!!
-
We have this little thing called a justice system. If someone has the ability to challenge a conviction from the past or bring a civil suit based on a wrongful conviction from the past, then they have that legal ability regardless of race. Even if their only reason for challenging the conviction or bringing suit is to play the race card, they still have that ability. We can't offer a legal remedy for wrongful convictions, but then say, "Nope! You blacks are playing the race card too often and trying to rub these wrongful convictions in our face...no more legal reviews for you."
Then maybe the riots will be at your house when this just pisses ignorant people off for no reason.
There is no evidence left therefore this is an will be nothing more than an attempt at race baiting. It's a no win situation and the people pushing it know that.
But whatever. I'm prepared for another assault on whitey by the black panther party. Because that is all this is about!
-
Then maybe the riots will be at your house when this just pisses ignorant people off for no reason.
There is no evidence left therefore this is an will be nothing more than an attempt at race baiting. It's a no win situation and the people pushing it know that.
But whatever. I'm prepared for another assault on whitey by the black panther party. Because that is all this is about!
If this is a frivolous request for a new trial, then it will be rejected. If it is accepted and then later determined to be a frivolous request for a new trial, then appropriate costs will be entered against the defendant's representative(s).
However, considering that there is new testimony, including a pathologist who claims to be able to refute the previous autopsy findings, I don't see how this could only be construed as a racial issue due to there being "no evidence left." Additionally, there is the fact that the prosecution claimed that evidence existed, but never admitted it at trial; although remaining court records are scant, various witnesses can testify to that, as can news reports. An appeal/new trial could be warranted on that fact alone. Based on South Carolina laws, it probably won't, but I don't see this as a trial being requested because of race alone.
-
Truth is, white people were in fact treated badly by other white people because of the particular ethnicity they belonged to. Very badly. A shit ton of Italians and Irish were treated like garbage by the aristocratic "mayflower blood" plantation types in charge. They were discriminated against, treated as 2nd class, subhuman and it was all public and "legal".
And no it doesn't justify the treatment of any other group badly. It was all wrong. And also in the past.
-
And no it doesn't justify the treatment of any other group badly. It was all wrong. And also in the past.
It's easy to say that it's all in the past when you haven't been sitting in jail for a crime you didn't commit. Of the 312 post-conviction exonerations in the U.S. (which are still adding up, BTW), the average served time was 14 years.
Granted, if you've already been executed, then there's nothing that can be done for the defendant. But I don't know that this doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't try to bring peace to the remaining family and friends by righting a wrong. Would you want your father to go down in judicial history as a rapist if you have reason to believe he was wrongly convicted? If you had the legal ability to challenge his conviction, would you agree with others when they tell you, "Man...it's all in the past. Just stop trying to stir the pot and wasting taxpayer dollars."
-
It's easy to say that it's all in the past when you haven't been sitting in jail for a crime you didn't commit. Of the 312 post-conviction exonerations in the U.S. (which are still adding up, BTW), the average served time was 14 years.
Granted, if you've already been executed, then there's nothing that can be done for the defendant. But I don't know that this doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't try to bring peace to the remaining family and friends by righting a wrong. Would you want your father to go down in judicial history as a rapist if you have reason to believe he was wrongly convicted? If you had the legal ability to challenge his conviction, would you agree with others when they tell you, "Man...it's all in the past. Just stop trying to stir the pot and wasting taxpayer dollars."
If everyone is dead from when it happened, then yes I say let it go. There is no way humanity can retroactively vindicate every victim that may or may not have ever existed. It's impossible. That's a huge slippery slope.
It's different if it's a current case and people are alive. And I really don't think this case is for all the right reasons. I can understand with the Medger Evers case because certain accused assailants were still alive. And in that case it worked because of that and new technology.
In this case, nothing will inherently change no matter the outcome.
-
Truth is, white people were in fact treated badly by other white people because of the particular ethnicity they belonged to. Very badly. A shit ton of Italians and Irish were treated like garbage by the aristocratic "mayflower blood" plantation types in charge. They were discriminated against, treated as 2nd class, subhuman and it was all public and "legal".
And no it doesn't justify the treatment of any other group badly. It was all wrong. And also in the past.
You see this knife? I'm gonna teach you to speak English with this fucking knife!
-
You see this knife? I'm gonna teach you to speak English with this fucking knife!
Bill Cutting was a bad bad dude.
-
It's easy to say that it's all in the past when you haven't been sitting in jail for a crime you didn't commit. Of the 312 post-conviction exonerations in the U.S. (which are still adding up, BTW), the average served time was 14 years.
Granted, if you've already been executed, then there's nothing that can be done for the defendant. But I don't know that this doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't try to bring peace to the remaining family and friends by righting a wrong. Would you want your father to go down in judicial history as a rapist if you have reason to believe he was wrongly convicted? If you had the legal ability to challenge his conviction, would you agree with others when they tell you, "Man...it's all in the past. Just stop trying to stir the pot and wasting taxpayer dollars."
And you would do all of this out of the goodness of your heart, no pay involved?
Fame and money. If this had been a white boy, it would never even be considered. Of course, according to most easily influenced people, no white people were ever treated poorly.
The article says all evidence has been lost. But now, someone says they remember it differently? Would that open a new case for anyone else? No. But this case involves a minority. So it has to be handled carefully.
And therein lies the issue that some of us are addressing. If there is hard evidence that this was truly a travesty, then show it and by all means, set it right.
-
If everyone is dead from when it happened, then yes I say let it go. There is no way humanity can retroactively vindicate every victim that may or may not have ever existed. It's impossible. That's a huge slippery slope.
It's different if it's a current case and people are alive. And I really don't think this case is for all the right reasons. I can understand with the Medger Evers case because certain accused assailants were still alive. And in that case it worked because of that and new technology.
In this case, nothing will inherently change no matter the outcome.
So if your father were convicted of rape and murder, and executed subsequent to this conviction, yet you knew or had reason to believe he was wrongly convicted, you'd let it go?
That's fine if you would, but would you deny your mother or siblings the ability to bring a legal challenge simply because it's in the past and he's been executed?
Some people might let it go, but others want vindication for their family and friends, even if they're deceased. And there exists a legal ability for them to request new trials or appeals in order to do so. I don't see what's wrong with wanting to clear someone's name for posterity's sake.
-
Of course, according to most easily influenced people, no white people were ever treated poorly.
Another ridiculous comment...
-
It's easy to say that it's all in the past when you haven't been sitting in jail for a crime you didn't commit. Of the 312 post-conviction exonerations in the U.S. (which are still adding up, BTW), the average served time was 14 years.
Granted, if you've already been executed, then there's nothing that can be done for the defendant. But I don't know that this doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't try to bring peace to the remaining family and friends by righting a wrong. Would you want your father to go down in judicial history as a rapist if you have reason to believe he was wrongly convicted? If you had the legal ability to challenge his conviction, would you agree with others when they tell you, "Man...it's all in the past. Just stop trying to stir the pot and wasting taxpayer dollars."
I am ok with the "justice seeking" trials if the loser pays ALL legal costs--including reimbursing taxpayers. That won't happen and neither should this trial based on what I read in this article. The fact that the kid was 14 and black, the victims were little white girls and the murders occurred during the Jim Crow era should not be the only justification for a retrial. I suspect that it is.
-
Wait. So the 14 year old kid that was executed was a father already?
-
And you would do all of this out of the goodness of your heart, no pay involved?
Fame and money. If this had been a white boy, it would never even be considered. Of course, according to most easily influenced people, no white people were ever treated poorly.
The guy taking on the case is the son of South Carolina's first black chief justice. Something tells me he has a chip on his shoulder for wanting to right wrongs against blacks. Whatever his motivations, however, that doesn't affect whether this case has a leg to stand on. Whatever the race of the defendant, that doesn't affect whether this case has a leg to stand on. It sounds like you're jumping to a lot of conclusions based on race, and consistently defending these conclusions based on race, but you're not really addressing the case itself. You seem to be playing the race card just as much as you accuse them of doing so.
But as long as we're talking about race, of the 312 post-conviction exonerations I mentioned earlier, 70% were minorities. I don't think anyone is arguing that white people are never treated poorly, but as WE!!! mentioned earlier, it's slightly absurd to act as if just as many whites were treated poorly in comparison to minorities. Especially when you're talking about the Jim Crow era or earlier.
As far as this never happening for white people? Look up David Wayne Spence, Cameron Todd Willingham, Claude Jones, Jesse Tafero, Ellis Wayne Felker, etc. Again, you're playing the race card by suggesting the system caters to minority appeals only, when in reality, many whites have been exonerated as well. And those mentioned above? Exonerated post-execution.
The article says all evidence has been lost. But now, someone says they remember it differently? Would that open a new case for anyone else? No. But this case involves a minority. So it has to be handled carefully.
And therein lies the issue that some of us are addressing. If there is hard evidence that this was truly a travesty, then show it and by all means, set it right.
No, not all of the evidence has been lost, and the article acknowledges this. The autopsy report still exists, as a pathologist is indicating that he can refute the findings. Additionally, there are witnesses and news reports that acknowledge the fact that the prosecution failed to properly admit evidence it claimed would show Stinney's guilt.
Again, I'm not saying there is a ton of evidence and that this is a slam dunk case, but there are clearly reasonable grounds for an appeal. Whatever the reason for bringing this legal challenge, those grounds have to at least be considered, regardless of the defendant's race or the motivations of his representatives for bringing the case.
If they filed a motion that just said, "He black, reconsider dis," then yeah, you'd have an argument that this is solely based on race and should be promptly denied. But when an autopsy report is being challenged, the handling of evidence is being challenged, the manner in which the defendant was interrogated is being challenged, and there are witnesses who state that the defendant had an alibi? Then there's evidence to be reviewed. And you can judge the credibility of that evidence all you want, but in our legal system, that's left up to the jury to decide as the trier of fact.
-
Wait. So the 14 year old kid that was executed was a father already?
No...I was only using a father as an example of someone who is a family member.
-
Another ridiculous comment...
Of course. That is why this is national news. With all of the atrocities that have occurred in our history, we get bombarded with those that involve the south and racism the most.
Ask the rest of the nation what they think of the south. Their view is formed through instances like this. While something bad has happened to just about every race, here in the last 40 years, its only an atrocity if it involves a minority.
So I guess until you can prove that most people do not think this way, it is not as ridiculous as it sounds.
-
I am ok with the "justice seeking" trials if the loser pays ALL legal costs--including reimbursing taxpayers. That won't happen and neither should this trial based on what I read in this article.
That's slightly problematic. When you make the court system accessible to only those who have the money required for bringing a case, then you're not promoting justice for all. You can never be guaranteed that you will win, even if you have a legitimate case, so you'd be deterring a lot of people from filing legitimate suits.
However, if the court finds that it was a frivolous suit, then they can and do often assess costs against the loser who brought the frivolous suit. But again, you can't really penalize people for bringing a legitimate case that just happens to lose.
The fact that the kid was 14 and black, the victims were little white girls and the murders occurred during the Jim Crow era should not be the only justification for a retrial. I suspect that it is.
Maybe, maybe not, but the article indicates there is evidence to be heard. Unless they've fabricated this evidence, it should have a shot at being reviewed, despite the reason for bringing the evidence. As mentioned before, it's ultimately up to the jury as trier of fact to determine whether that evidence is legitimate, and whether it warrants exoneration.
-
So if your father were convicted of rape and murder, and executed subsequent to this conviction, yet you knew or had reason to believe he was wrongly convicted, you'd let it go?
That's fine if you would, but would you deny your mother or siblings the ability to bring a legal challenge simply because it's in the past and he's been executed?
Some people might let it go, but others want vindication for their family and friends, even if they're deceased. And there exists a legal ability for them to request new trials or appeals in order to do so. I don't see what's wrong with wanting to clear someone's name for posterity's sake.
It really just depends on the viability of the doubt. Some people will just be in denial a loved one did anything wrong. I would expect the cases where someone was wrongly convicted are the exception not the rule. I wouldn't want to waste tax payer money and a courts time for something where someone had a feeling or a hunch. They would need to bring serious proof that hasn't been uncovered before in a previous case. And it would need to be overwhelming. These are just so far and few. For every 100 that get brought up you'd have a handful where the people had a real case. That's the slippery slope.
-
I am ok with the "justice seeking" trials if the loser pays ALL legal costs--including reimbursing taxpayers. That won't happen and neither should this trial based on what I read in this article. The fact that the kid was 14 and black, the victims were little white girls and the murders occurred during the Jim Crow era should not be the only justification for a retrial. I suspect that it is.
This sums it up better than I have.
If it truly is for justice, by all means pursue it.
But we have seen too many things like this pursued for the wrong reasons.
The reason this case is gettng a lot of attention is from the "Jim Crow" connection stated above.
This type of thing creates spaghetti courts.
Throw what you can at the courts and see what sticks. Of course no lawyer wants any form of loser pay in this environment.
-
Wait. So the 14 year old kid that was executed was a father already?
See though if you had been around back then you would have just shot him on site, saved the taxpayers a lot of money.
-
That's slightly problematic. When you make the court system accessible to only those who have the money required for bringing a case, then you're not promoting justice for all. You can never be guaranteed that you will win, even if you have a legitimate case, so you'd be deterring a lot of people from filing legitimate suits.
However, if the court finds that it was a frivolous suit, then they can and do often assess costs against the loser who brought the frivolous suit. But again, you can't really penalize people for bringing a legitimate case that just happens to lose.
Maybe, maybe not, but the article indicates there is evidence to be heard. Unless they've fabricated this evidence, it should have a shot at being reviewed, despite the reason for bringing the evidence. As mentioned before, it's ultimately up to the jury as trier of fact to determine whether that evidence is legitimate, and whether it warrants exoneration.
How about we make the losing lieyer pay the costs? Bet that would cut out some sleepless nights and caring.
-
See though if you had been around back then you would have just shot him on site, saved the taxpayers a lot of money.
Jack Boot bastage
-
Wait. So the 14 year old kid that was executed was a father already?
Well...he was black...
-
This sums it up better than I have.
If it truly is for justice, by all means pursue it.
But we have seen too many things like this pursued for the wrong reasons.
The reason this case is gettng a lot of attention is from the "Jim Crow" connection stated above.
This type of thing creates spaghetti courts.
Throw what you can at the courts and see what sticks. Of course no lawyer wants any form of loser pay in this environment.
Agreed.
-
It really just depends on the viability of the doubt. Some people will just be in denial a loved one did anything wrong. I would expect the cases where someone was wrongly convicted are the exception not the rule. I wouldn't want to waste tax payer money and a courts time for something where someone had a feeling or a hunch. They would need to bring serious proof that hasn't been uncovered before in a previous case. And it would need to be overwhelming. These are just so far and few. For every 100 that get brought up you'd have a handful where the people had a real case. That's the slippery slope.
And our legal system is set up so as to examine the viability of the doubt. If you're just in denial and submit an appeal or request for a new trial with absolutely no new evidence or no legal challenges regarding how evidence was previously treated, then it will be rejected. But if you are bringing new evidence or new legal challenges, then it should at least be considered. And that's what our legal system is there for.
As far as the wrongful convictions being far and few, I don't think that should have any bearing as to whether a case is reviewed. Each instance should be viewed based on its own merits, and not based on the statistical probability of a wrongful conviction.
I'm not advocating that every request for a new trial be granted. I'm simply pointing out that the case needs to be viewed based on its merits, and not just dismissed as an attempt to incite a race riot simply because the defendant was black and this was the Jim Crow era. They've brought new evidence to the table. Is it enough? Is it legitimate enough to warrant a review? Should that review warrant exoneration? I don't know, I'm not privy to the details in this case, but for anyone to completely dismiss it as racist hogwash is a little concerning.
-
How about we make the losing lieyer pay the costs? Bet that would cut out some sleepless nights and caring.
Not for me, it wouldn't
-
Not for me, it wouldn't
RECOGNIZE!
-
It's easy to say that it's all in the past when you haven't been sitting in jail for a crime you didn't commit. Of the 312 post-conviction exonerations in the U.S. (which are still adding up, BTW), the average served time was 14 years.
Granted, if you've already been executed, then there's nothing that can be done for the defendant. But I don't know that this doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't try to bring peace to the remaining family and friends by righting a wrong. Would you want your father to go down in judicial history as a rapist if you have reason to believe he was wrongly convicted? If you had the legal ability to challenge his conviction, would you agree with others when they tell you, "Man...it's all in the past. Just stop trying to stir the pot and wasting taxpayer dollars."
My great, great, great, great grandfather (or somebody like that) was an indentured servant. He had to slave off his passage to the new world. I WANT REPARATIONS!!!
One of my ancestors in the 1700s was hung for stealing chickens. Or horses. Or something like that. I'm sure he didn't do it. I DEMAND justice!! Now!! I have evidence he didn't steal that horse. Or cow. Or whatever. There wasn't DNA evidence back then. I want the chicken bones and his bones tested!!
One of my great x10 aunts was drowned as a witch in Salem. I want the city of Salem sued for a kaboolion dollars!! I want what's owed to me. Now!!
Who cares about some dude who went to prison 300 years ago and who's now dead. Not gonna do him any good. So too bad.
-
One of my ancestors in the 1700s was hung for stealing chickens. Or horses. Or something like that. I'm sure he didn't do it. I DEMAND justice!! Now!! I have evidence he didn't steal that horse. Or cow. Or whatever. There wasn't DNA evidence back then. I want the chicken bones and his bones tested!!
Chicken fucking is what I heard and he was caught cock in hand.
-
But as long as we're talking about race, of the 312 post-conviction exonerations I mentioned earlier, 70% were minorities. I don't think anyone is arguing that white people are never treated poorly, but as WE!!! mentioned earlier, it's slightly absurd to act as if just as many whites were treated poorly in comparison to minorities. Especially when you're talking about the Jim Crow era or earlier.
STUPID statistic. 80% of the crimes are committed by blacks. So it only stands to reason that 70% of the exonerations would also be blacks. Unless they only lettin' white folks go.
-
My great-grandfather was charged with sodomy but there is no need for a retrial. His brother was a really good lawyer. He got the charges reduced to tailgating.
-
Chicken fudgeing is what I heard and he was caught rooster in hand.
Knew it had something to do with livestock.
-
Knew it had something to do with livestock.
So much funnier with profanity filter off.
-
So much funnier with profanity filter off.
I'm trying to be the shepherd, ringo.
-
I'm trying to be the shepherd, ringo.
You are on the wrong mountain.
-
See, now I'm thinking, maybe it means you're the evil man, and I'm the righteous man, and Mr. 9 millimeter here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteousness in the valley of darkness. Or it could mean you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that ain't the truth. The truth is, you're the weak, and I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm trying, Ringo. I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd.
-
See, now I'm thinking, maybe it means you're the evil man, and I'm the righteous man, and Mr. 9 millimeter here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteousness in the valley of darkness. Or it could mean you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that ain't the truth. The truth is, you're the weak, and I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm trying, Ringo. I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd.
What?
-
What?
Say what again.
-
My great, great, great, great grandfather (or somebody like that) was an indentured servant. He had to slave off his passage to the new world. I WANT REPARATIONS!!!
Pigford Act. Thank the GREAT one. he is who you were waiting for...
-
The guy taking on the case is the son of South Carolina's first black chief justice. Something tells me he has a chip on his shoulder for wanting to right wrongs against blacks. Whatever his motivations, however, that doesn't affect whether this case has a leg to stand on. Whatever the race of the defendant, that doesn't affect whether this case has a leg to stand on. It sounds like you're jumping to a lot of conclusions based on race, and consistently defending these conclusions based on race, but you're not really addressing the case itself. You seem to be playing the race card just as much as you accuse them of doing so.
But as long as we're talking about race, of the 312 post-conviction exonerations I mentioned earlier, 70% were minorities. I don't think anyone is arguing that white people are never treated poorly, but as WE!!! mentioned earlier, it's slightly absurd to act as if just as many whites were treated poorly in comparison to minorities. Especially when you're talking about the Jim Crow era or earlier.
As far as this never happening for white people? Look up David Wayne Spence, Cameron Todd Willingham, Claude Jones, Jesse Tafero, Ellis Wayne Felker, etc. Again, you're playing the race card by suggesting the system caters to minority appeals only, when in reality, many whites have been exonerated as well. And those mentioned above? Exonerated post-execution.
No, not all of the evidence has been lost, and the article acknowledges this. The autopsy report still exists, as a pathologist is indicating that he can refute the findings. Additionally, there are witnesses and news reports that acknowledge the fact that the prosecution failed to properly admit evidence it claimed would show Stinney's guilt.
Again, I'm not saying there is a ton of evidence and that this is a slam dunk case, but there are clearly reasonable grounds for an appeal. Whatever the reason for bringing this legal challenge, those grounds have to at least be considered, regardless of the defendant's race or the motivations of his representatives for bringing the case.
If they filed a motion that just said, "He black, reconsider dis," then yeah, you'd have an argument that this is solely based on race and should be promptly denied. But when an autopsy report is being challenged, the handling of evidence is being challenged, the manner in which the defendant was interrogated is being challenged, and there are witnesses who state that the defendant had an alibi? Then there's evidence to be reviewed. And you can judge the credibility of that evidence all you want, but in our legal system, that's left up to the jury to decide as the trier of fact.
TL,DR but I will only add that I suspect that anyone who supports this retrial likes to suck the dick.
-
TL,DR but I will only add that I suspect that anyone who supports this retrial likes to suck the dick.
Prove it.
-
STUPID statistic. 80% of the crimes are committed by blacks. So it only stands to reason that 70% of the exonerations would also be blacks. Unless they only lettin' white folks go.
Umm...no. THAT is a stupid statistic.
I think the statistic you're thinking of is that blacks, as a population in and of itself, has a higher percentage of people committing crimes than whites, as a population in and of itself, does. Blacks do not commit 80% of overall crimes committed by all races.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43)
-
My great, great, great, great grandfather (or somebody like that) was an indentured servant. He had to slave off his passage to the new world. I WANT REPARATIONS!!!
One of my ancestors in the 1700s was hung for stealing chickens. Or horses. Or something like that. I'm sure he didn't do it. I DEMAND justice!! Now!! I have evidence he didn't steal that horse. Or cow. Or whatever. There wasn't DNA evidence back then. I want the chicken bones and his bones tested!!
One of my great x10 aunts was drowned as a witch in Salem. I want the city of Salem sued for a kaboolion dollars!! I want what's owed to me. Now!!
Who cares about some dude who went to prison 300 years ago and who's now dead. Not gonna do him any good. So too bad.
1700s ≠1944. Not to mention that you'd probably have to appeal to the English monarchy due to the fact that America was not in existence as an independent country for most of the 1700s. Oh, and there's that whole thing about evidence existing from 1944 being a feasible possibility, whereas this ludicrous claim about evidence from the 1700s isn't realistically tenable.
Great hyperbolic example though...next thing you know, you'll be throwing out statistics about blacks committing 80% of all crimes...oh, wait...
-
1700s ≠1944. Not to mention that you'd probably have to appeal to the English monarchy due to the fact that America was not in existence as an independent country for most of the 1700s. Oh, and there's that whole thing about evidence existing from 1944 being a feasible possibility, whereas this ludicrous claim about evidence from the 1700s isn't realistically tenable.
Great hyperbolic example though...next thing you know, you'll be throwing out statistics about blacks committing 80% of all crimes...oh, wait...
11% of the population commits 30% of the crime. That equals 80%. Maybe 85.
Blacks make up 40% of the prison population. Hmmm. Hispanics make up 21%. That's also 80. Maybe 87.
-
Wait...which one of you sucks dick?
-
11% of the population commits 30% of the crime. That equals 80%. Maybe 85.
Blacks make up 40% of the prison population. Hmmm. Hispanics make up 21%. That's also 80. Maybe 87.
While I was digging for numbers on this subject, I came across this old article. (not sure if its correct, just interesting) The numbers may have shifted a bit, but I doubt its that much. (Why nobody gives us these numbers is beyond me. I guess they would be labeled racist)
http://vdare.com/articles/mapping-the-unmentionable-race-and-crime (http://vdare.com/articles/mapping-the-unmentionable-race-and-crime)
Here is another article that supports the incorrect counting of hispanics.
http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q32013/america-s-elusive-crime-statistics-by-race/ (http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q32013/america-s-elusive-crime-statistics-by-race/)
-
11% of the population commits 30% of the crime. That equals 80%. Maybe 85.
Blacks make up 40% of the prison population. Hmmm. Hispanics make up 21%. That's also 80. Maybe 87.
Or 3/5.
-
Wait...which one of you sucks dick?
Well, I can't prove that he sucks them or anything but we definitely know that VV likes them. And takes them up the ass. Big black ones anyway.
-
The guy state prosecuter taking on the case is the son of South Carolina's first black chief justice. Something tells me he has a chip on his shoulder for wanting to right wrongs against blacks. Whatever his motivations, however, that doesn't affect whether this case has a leg to stand on. Whatever the race of the defendant, that doesn't affect whether this case has a leg to stand on. It sounds like you're jumping to a lot of conclusions based on race, and consistently defending these conclusions based on race, but you're not really addressing the case itself. You seem to be playing the race card just as much as you accuse them of doing so.
facts and shit
-
facts and shit
I misread the article and thought that was the guy representing the defendant. Facts and shit.
I was clearly too distracted by the thought of black cocks.
-
I was clearly too distracted by the thought of black cocks.
Isn't everyone?
-
Isn't everyone?
I hope not...I like being special.