George Stinney was fourteen years old when he was arrested for the murder of Betty June Binnicker and Mary Emma Thames in Alcolu, South Carolina. He is one of the youngest Americans sentenced to death and executed in the 20th century. That was 1944.
In 2025, George would have legal protections that were not available to him in 1944. This article addresses those differences.
On March 23, 1944, the bodies of Betty June Binnicker and Mary Emma Thames were found in a ditch. The girls had been beaten with a weapon. They were last seen looking for flowers near the Stinneys’ property. The girls asked George and his sister where they could find a particular flower. It was believed that the Stinneys were the last ones to see the girls alive.
George was arrested for the girls’ murders after being questioned by the police. The arresting officer reported that George confessed to the murders, although no written confession was ever produced. George did not have an attorney during the interrogation and was not allowed to see his parents until after his trial and conviction. He had a court-appointed attorney at his two-and-a-half-hour trial, but his attorney did not call any witnesses, did not cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses, and offered no defense. The jury found George guilty in less than ten minutes. There are no trial transcripts, and George’s attorney did not file an appeal. The judge sentenced him to death. The state executed George 53 days later.
George was black. The two girls were white. George’s jury was all white men.
Today, our legal system dispenses justice differently.
First, in the state of South Carolina, the Family Court has jurisdiction over juveniles who are charged with criminal offenses. The statewide Family Court System replaced county courts in 1977. For the offense of murder, the prosecutor can seek to move the case to the Court of General Sessions (adult criminal court). There is a procedure for doing that and the family court judge must consider certain factors, including the sophistication and maturity of the youth, their prior history, the seriousness of the offense, any injury to people or property, the merit of the complaint, the prospect for adequate protection of the public, and the likelihood of the reasonable rehabilitation of the youth in the juvenile system.
Second, George would be entitled to an effective and competent lawyer. His lawyer should have defended him at trial. A proper defense would have likely included challenging the voluntariness of his confession, calling witnesses (like his sister, who had said that George was with her during the time the police believed the girls were killed), and cross-examining the prosecution’s witnesses.
Third, if George’s case had been transferred to the Court of General Sessions, he would be entitled to a jury trial. Juveniles tried in Family Court are not entitled to a jury trial; their cases are heard and decided by a judge. If a juvenile’s case is transferred to the Court of General Sessions, the juvenile is treated as an adult and is, therefore, entitled to a trial by jury. In 2025, he would unlikely to get an all-white or all-male jury. Case law provides opportunities to challenge jury selections that appear to be discriminatory.
Fourth, George, as a fourteen-year-old, would not be eligible for the death penalty even if he were found guilty of the murders. The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the death penalty for crimes committed when a person is a youth is “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Finally, George would have had the option to appeal his case to a higher court. In 2025, court proceedings will include detailed transcripts. An appellate court could review the transcripts and the evidence presented at trial to determine whether there were any legal deficiencies.
In December 2014, a South Carolina judge vacated George’s conviction. The judge determined that George had not received a fair trial, that he did not have effective assistance of counsel, and that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated. She also ruled that his confession was likely coerced and should have been inadmissible.
George Stinney’s case illustrates how far the legal system has come over the past 80 years. It is a testament to our legal system that these additional safeguards are now in place. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution each contain a due process clause. Due process of law is crucial to maintaining a civil society. It is a safeguard from the government's arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property. The rule of law must remain.
