Spring, 1944. Alcolu, South Carolina. A fourteen-year-old Black boy named George Junius Stinney Jr. became the vessel through which white supremacy revealed its full appetite. His name should echo in every classroom, carved into every conscience. His story should be taught as sacred text—a warning, a wound that refuses to close. His death—by electric chair on June 16, 1944—stands as immovable proof of the systematic cruelty woven into the fabric of American "justice" during Jim Crow's reign. Yet for decades, George Stinney remained a footnote. A number. A statistic in a nation that demands Black America "get over" the very atrocities that built its courts and shaped its soul.
The contradiction sits at the heart of American racial memory like a cancer. White America erects monuments to its own suffering. Holocaust memorials command reverence and resources. Confederate soldiers receive parades and preservation. The instruction rings clear across generations: these atrocies must never be forgotten. Never again, they say. Remember, they insist.
Yet when Black America remembers—when we refuse to let the names of the murdered fade, when we demand the machinery of their destruction be understood and dismantled, when we will not "move on" without full accounting—we are told we dwell in the past. We are accused of nursing grievance. We are informed that enough time has passed, that forgiveness must be granted to those who never asked for it, that reconciliation must be offered to systems that continue to devour us.
This is not healing. This is erasure dressed in the language of progress.
George Stinney's execution was not justice. It was murder sanctioned by the state. And seventy years later, when a judge finally vacated his conviction in 2014, the verdict arrived clear and damning: "I can think of no greater injustice."
The Crime: A Child's Casual Comment Becomes His Death Sentence
March 23, 1944. Two young white girls—Betty June Binnicker, eleven years old, and Mary Emma Thames, eight—disappeared in Alcolu. Their bodies were discovered the next morning in a shallow ditch near railroad tracks, bludgeoned, the boundary between white and Black Alcolu marked in their blood.
That same afternoon, deputy sheriffs arrived at the Stinney home. George had been playing in the yard. They handcuffed him. He was fourteen.
What was George's crime? He had mentioned to someone that he'd seen the girls earlier that day. A casual comment. A child's innocent answer. The girls had approached him and his sister asking where they could find flowers. Hours later, they were dead.
This single statement sealed his fate.
George was subjected to hours of interrogation. No parents present. No attorney. No protection of any kind. The police claimed he confessed to the murders—though no written statement was ever produced. No recording. No independent witness. Nothing beyond the sheriff's word. His alleged confession existed only in the narrative spun by law enforcement, a story that would become the entire foundation of the state's case against him.
The consequences for George's family arrived immediately. His father was fired from his job at the sawmill that very night. Threats of lynch violence forced the family to flee their home. A mob attempted to seize George, but he had already been transferred to an out-of-town jail—not for his protection, but to preserve the state's legal right to execute him before the mob could claim that privilege.
The Trial: Justice Theater in Jim Crow's South
April 24, 1944. Exactly eighty days after his arrest, George Stinney faced trial. The proceedings lasted approximately two hours. An all-white jury deliberated for ten minutes before convicting him of murder. He was sentenced to death that same day.
Consider what occurred during those 120 minutes:
No Black faces in the courtroom. The room overflowed with 1,500 white spectators. Black citizens—including George's own parents—were barred from attending. In a county nearly three-quarters Black, the jury that decided George's fate consisted of twelve white men, assembled by a system designed explicitly to exclude Black jurors. This was not accident. This was architecture.
No defense. George's court-appointed attorney was a tax commissioner with political ambitions—a man with no criminal defense experience and no interest in defending a Black boy accused of murdering white girls. He called no witnesses. He conducted no independent investigation. He asked few questions of prosecution witnesses. He filed no appeal. He made no attempt to stay the execution. Judge Carmen Mullen, who would vacate the conviction seventy years later, described this representation as "the essence of being ineffective"—language so restrained it barely contains the scope of the abandonment.
No evidence. The prosecution's entire case rested on a single element: the alleged confession of a fourteen-year-old child, coerced through hours of interrogation without counsel or parental presence. No physical evidence connected George to the crime. No witnesses testified to seeing him commit the murders. No weapon was recovered. The state had nothing except the power to decide that a Black child's life was forfeit.
No mercy. Governor Olin Johnston refused to grant clemency, sealing the final avenue of escape available to the condemned.
The Execution: A Child Too Small for the Chair
Morning. June 16, 1944. George Stinney—ninety pounds, barely over five feet tall—was led to South Carolina's electric chair. He was fourteen years and six months old. State officials, acknowledging his physical smallness in a gesture both grotesque and practical, forced him to sit on a book—reported to be the Bible he had carried with him into the death chamber—so the execution device could properly restrain him. Even with this makeshift elevation, his feet did not reach the floor.
7:30 a.m. 2,400 volts surged through his body. Newspaper accounts reported that the oversized mask placed on his face slipped during execution, exposing his eyes—wide open, streaming with tears as electricity tore through him.
George Stinney remains the youngest person executed in the United States in the twentieth century. He remains so to this day.
Seventy Years of Silence: A Nation's Refusal to Remember
After George's execution, his case disappeared into history. The trial transcript was not preserved. His family scattered—driven by fear and economic necessity. The case became a whispered tragedy, known to those who lived through it but not taught, not memorialized, not reckoned with by the American legal system or American society at large.
For seventy years, George Stinney remained wrongfully executed. A murdered child whose death had been sanctioned by the state. A conviction rendered without evidence. A trial that was theatrical performance of injustice.
2004. Local historian George Frierson began investigating the case after reading a newspaper article. His work, combined with efforts by lawyers Steve McKenzie, Matt Burgess, and others, brought the case back into light. In 2013, a motion for a new trial was filed. December 2014, Judge Carmen Mullen held a two-day hearing that included testimony from three of George's surviving siblings, members of the search party that discovered the girls' bodies, and expert witnesses.
The evidence presented painted a starkly different picture from the one accepted by the 1944 jury. Witnesses testified about George's alibi. Experts explained the coercive nature of police interrogations of children. The systematic exclusion of Black jurors was documented. The absence of physical evidence was highlighted. Most damningly, the "confession" that had formed the entire basis for conviction was revealed to be inadmissible hearsay, documented only in the handwritten statement of a deputy sheriff with every incentive to lie.
December 16, 2014. Judge Carmen Mullen vacated George Stinney's conviction. In her ruling, she found that George had been fundamentally deprived of due process, that his alleged confession "simply cannot be said to be known and voluntary," that his representation was "the essence of being ineffective," and that the trial process had violated his Sixth Amendment rights so egregiously as to render it void.
"I can think of no greater injustice," the judge wrote.
But even this exoneration arrived limited. Judge Mullen confined her ruling to procedural grounds—the unfairness of the trial process—rather than addressing the question of actual innocence. She deliberately left open the possibility that George "may well have committed this crime," despite the complete absence of evidence, the coerced nature of his alleged confession, and the inherent unreliability of a conviction rendered under such circumstances.
Seventy years after his execution, George Stinney's name was partially cleared. But he received no apology from the state. His family received no compensation. South Carolina did not acknowledge that it had murdered a child. The machinery of injustice that killed him was never dismantled. It was simply updated.
Remember Forever: Art, Activism, and the Refusal to Forget
In response to cases like George Stinney's, and in defiance of a system that demands Black forgiveness without Black justice, artists and activists have created memorials that refuse erasure. The "Remember Forever" collection and similar artistic responses function as countermonuments—not to celebrate or commemorate the state's violence, but to resurrect the names and faces of those murdered by it.
Deborah Roberts, a contemporary artist, created a series of works centered on George Stinney and other young Black victims of state violence. Her piece "80 days" takes its title from the span of time between George's arrest and his execution—eighty days in which the machinery of injustice moved with brutal efficiency. By fixing the viewer's attention on this temporal span, Roberts transforms a number into moral indictment. Eighty days. From arrest to electrocution. From childhood to state-sanctioned murder.
J. Renee, an internationally known artist, created an installation featuring a replica of an electric chair adorned with ropes, blue bottles, and a cracked glass plate bearing a faint reverse-glass portrait of Stinney's face. "I wanted this piece to basically give him a voice," Renee explained. "He didn't have a voice." The artist deliberately chose not to render Stinney's face clearly, instead creating an image partially obscured and deliberately fractured—because, as Renee notes, the state hid his face, and George himself was broken by the violence done to him.
Quincy Pugh, another artist, painted a series of portraits based on mugshots of people arrested and sometimes killed because of their race or social activism. When Pugh first encountered the mugshot of George Stinney, he was "quite bothered by this case" and the photo "haunted me tremendously." Years later, after retirement, he returned to that image and created a portrait that would honor George's memory and demand that he be recognized as a victim of racial violence.
These artistic interventions serve a crucial function: they refuse the forgetting that white America demands. They insist that George Stinney's name be known. They make visible the violence that the state prefers to keep hidden. They create space for grief, for rage, and for the political consciousness that emerges from truly confronting American racial injustice.
The Demand Placed Upon Black America: Never Forget, But Don't Remember
At the heart of the "Remember Forever" project lies a devastating paradox. White America has constructed an entire infrastructure of memory around its own suffering and its claims to victimhood. Monuments to Confederate soldiers dot the landscape. Holocaust memorials command reverence and resources. American soldiers are honored with parades and national holidays. The instruction rings clear: these atrocities must never be forgotten.
Yet when Black America insists on remembering—when we demand that the names of the murdered not be erased, that the mechanisms of their murder be understood and dismantled, that we refuse to "move on" without accounting—we are told we dwell in the past. We are accused of harboring a "victim mentality." We are informed that enough time has passed, that we should forgive those who never asked forgiveness, that we should reconcile with systems that continue to destroy us.
This demand is not new. Throughout American history, Black Americans have been expected to forgive without apology, to move forward without restitution, to grant reconciliation to a nation that has never reconciled itself to our humanity. After slavery, we were told to forget centuries of bondage. After the Civil War, we were told to forgive those who had fought to keep us enslaved. During Jim Crow, we were told that segregation was natural and that our protests were impatient. After the Civil Rights Movement, we were told that racism was solved and that discussions of its persistence were backward-looking.
But George Stinney's case reveals the lie at the heart of this demand. Seventy years passed. A new judge, applying the law as it should have been applied in 1944, recognized that George had received no justice. The conviction was vacated. Yet even this limited exoneration was framed in carefully restrictive language—as a procedural failure, not as an acknowledgment that the state had committed murder.
George Stinney's family received no apology. His name was not cleared of the murder charges; the conviction was merely vacated on due-process grounds. The people responsible for his execution were not held accountable. The systemic racism that killed him was not dismantled. And South Carolina did not pay reparations to his family until decades later, when Representative Cezar McKnight introduced legislation in 2022 that would provide $10 million to families of the wrongfully executed—a gesture that arrived too late for most of George's immediate family members, who had already passed away.
This is what American "forgiveness" looks like: limited, grudging, incomplete, and arrived at only after decades of struggle and the deaths of those who might have benefited from it.
The Jim Crow System Did Not End; It Transformed
When people speak of Jim Crow as a historical era that ended in the 1950s and 1960s, they traffic in dangerous myth. The explicit legal structure of racial segregation was dismantled, yes—but the underlying systems of racial control and the criminal justice apparatus that enforced them were merely reformed, not eliminated.
The criminal justice system continues to operate as a mechanism of racial control. All-white or nearly all-white juries continue to render verdicts in cases involving Black defendants and white victims, despite the formal prohibition on racial discrimination in jury selection. Confessions extracted under coercive circumstances continue to be accepted as evidence, despite their notorious unreliability. Inadequate legal representation continues to be provided to Black defendants, particularly in capital cases. And the threat of racially motivated violence continues to loom over the criminal justice system, though it now wears the mask of "law and order" rather than the hood of the Klan.
The Equal Justice Initiative has documented that between 1877 and 1950, at least 4,084 African Americans were lynched in twelve Southern states alone. But lynching did not end; it was absorbed into the criminal justice system. The state took over the function that mobs had performed—the elimination of Black people deemed threatening to white supremacy—and gave it legal form. Police brutality, wrongful conviction, and capital punishment became the modern equivalents of the lynch mob's rope.
George Stinney's execution was a lynching performed by the state. It was preceded by mob threats and coercive interrogation. It was rendered inevitable by a rigged trial. And it was carried out through the apparatus of the criminal justice system, which provided legal legitimacy to racial murder.
Seventy years later, cases strikingly similar to George's continue to occur. Black defendants, often represented by inadequate counsel, continue to be convicted by all-white or nearly all-white juries in cases lacking credible evidence. Some are eventually exonerated through DNA testing or the efforts of innocence projects—but many are not. The system has not changed fundamentally; it has only become more efficient, more rationalized, more difficult to challenge on explicit racial grounds.
The Limits of Exoneration in a System Built on Injustice
When Judge Carmen Mullen vacated George Stinney's conviction in 2014, it was framed as victory. Civil rights advocates celebrated. The case was held up as evidence that the legal system could, eventually, acknowledge and correct egregious injustices.
But the exoneration of George Stinney, limited as it was, raises a question that haunts all efforts at racial justice within the American legal system: What is the value of an exoneration that comes seventy years after execution, after the victim is dead, after the wrong has been rendered irreversible?
The judge's ruling did not declare George innocent. It did not hold anyone accountable for his murder. It did not award restitution to his family for the destruction of their lives. It did not dismantle the system that had killed him. It did not lead to mandatory reforms in how capital cases are handled or how juries are selected. It did not result in apologies from the state or the legal professionals who had participated in the injustice.
George Stinney's exoneration is a vindication of procedure, not a rectification of injustice. It is a tiny crack in a massive edifice of racial violence, but the structure itself remains fundamentally intact.
This is crucial: exoneration, at least as it currently functions within the American legal system, is not justice. Justice would require accountability, restitution, systemic change, and—most fundamentally—a nation willing to confront the reality that its legal system was built on racism and continues to perpetuate it.
The "Remember Forever" Imperative: Why Some Wounds Cannot Be Healed
The title of the artistic collection—"Remember Forever"—contains deliberate provocation. It insists that there are some things that should not be forgotten, some wounds that should not be healed through forgetting, some truths that must remain visible in the collective consciousness indefinitely.
This is direct response to the demand that Black America forget. It is refusal of the narrative that says time heals all wounds, that we should move past historical injustices, that dwelling on the past prevents progress. Instead, it asserts that some historical truths must be kept alive precisely because they reveal the ongoing nature of American racial injustice.
George Stinney's execution did not happen in isolation. It was one instance—the most visible, perhaps the most grotesque—of a system designed to maintain white supremacy through law. The Jim Crow system was not aberration or excess. It was deliberate construction of white Southern society, supported by federal law, enabled by a complicit federal government, and rationalized by a legal system committed to racial hierarchy.
The question that "Remember Forever" poses to America is this: Can you look at George Stinney's face? Can you know his name? Can you understand how the machinery of American law was used to murder a child? And if so, what will you do with that knowledge?
To remember forever is not to be trapped in the past. It is to refuse the erasure that allows injustice to be repeated. It is to maintain the vigilance necessary to prevent the next George Stinney. It is to insist that the nation's legal system and its historical memory cannot be separated—that to truly reckon with America's present, we must unflinchingly confront its past.
No Reconciliation Without Reckoning
George Stinney Jr. was fourteen years old when South Carolina executed him on June 16, 1944. He was innocent. He was denied a fair trial. He was denied legal representation. He was denied every protection that the law supposedly guarantees. He was murdered by the state.
Seventy years later, his conviction was vacated on procedural grounds. But no apology was issued. No one was held accountable. No systemic reforms were mandated. The machine that had killed him ground on, refined but fundamentally unchanged.
This is the American reckoning with racial injustice: too little, too late, and never enough.
The "Remember Forever" project insists that there is another way—that we can refuse the demand to forget, that we can maintain the memory of George Stinney and all those murdered by America's legal system, that we can use that memory not to wallow in victimhood but to fuel the struggle for actual justice.
Actual justice would mean: accountability for those who perpetrated and enabled the crime. Restitution to the families of the victims. Fundamental reformation of the criminal justice system. A national reckoning with the history of racial violence embedded in American law.
It would mean looking at George Stinney's face and saying: This should never happen again. And then making the systemic changes necessary to ensure it.
Until that reckoning occurs, until America truly remembers—not selectively, not partially, but honestly and completely—the murders perpetrated in the name of justice, there can be no reconciliation. There can only be the demand to remember forever.
George Stinney Jr. (October 21, 1929 – June 16, 1944). A child. Innocent. Murdered by the state. Remembered now and forever.
0 comments