Talk:Scottsboro Boys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] To Kill a Mockingbird

The book 'To Kill a Mockingbird' was not actually based on this trial nor was it the inspiration. There was another trial in Monroeville when Harper Lee (author) was a child living there. Could someone try to find a reputable source on this? 124.168.72.168 06:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. The trial you are recalling is covered in depth in Charles Shields's biography of Harper Lee, first released in 2006. — Cinemaniac 19:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-NPOV statement?

Good article with one exception: "...are regarded as one of the many travesties of the United States justice system." I'm tempted to flag a non-NPOV for this one.

Regarded by whom?

I would contend that the U.S. legal system, on the whole, is no worse than any other system devised by man, and better than most. And having a legal system is better than not having one.

If this was changed to "... are regarded as one of the travesties of justice perpetrated against blacks in the post-Reconstruction South", or something to that effect, it would be okay.

I'm not going to just hack that in, out of respect to the otherwise good work of the author(s).

I think your idea is good. Don't mind if I take it in, do you? bibliomaniac15 20:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Is there a reason this is listed under disputed convictions instead of wrongful convictions? Is there anyone that still doubts the innocence of these boys?

There's a rather good PBS documentary on this that I saw recently. While I'm no expert on this issue, several facts on this page differ from what was said in the documentary. For instance, the train stopped in Scottsboro, and not in Paint Rock. Can anyone confirm or deny this?


I have lived in Scottsboro most of my life and I don't think anyone here believes they were guilty. At least not anymore. This case was a huge black eye for our town and the state of Alabama and the south in general. From all the stories I've heard through out the years,the train was stopped in Paint Rock, a small town about 25 miles west of Scottsboro. Most people I heard talk about it wished the train had been stopped about ten miles farther west. Then they would have been the Huntsville Boys instead.As it turned out the young men had to be brought to Scottsboro because it was the county seat.Kgj 02:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hey

hey I enjoyed this website it helped me alot......thanks for putting it on here! Taylor

[edit] hey

wait, why did this happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.130.79.12 (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hey

I broke my arm and this website makes it easy to print info........Thanks, Sarah

when nine black teenagers, none older than twenty-one,'

What percentage of teenagers are older than twenty-one. Pretty few, in my experience.

yeah thanks so much.. casy

[edit] Unconstitutional?

The photo of the historical marker mentions that the defence claimed that the trial was unconstitutional. If so, why? matturn 13:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The defense claimed the trial was unconstitutional twice. The first time, the reasoning was that the nine boys did not receive counsel, thus violating their right to due process under the fourteenth amendment. The second time, the reasoning was that since no eligible were included in the jury roll, this denied the boys to equal protection under the fourteenth amendment. Does that answer your question? Corvus coronoides 00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The first U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case was Powell v. Alabama (1932). I've added a link to our article about this case, so you can read it there; the article also has a link to the court decision itself. We don't seem to have an article yet about the second case, Norris v. Alabama (1935), but perhaps someone can write one soon. :) In the meantime, a link to the Supreme Court decision in the latter case is here. Newyorkbrad 01:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Alan K Chalmers

I've heard this man represented the boys at one stage. What was his part in the story? matturn 13:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Fixed

Removed 'poop' from the list of the boys Gwrtheyrn 17:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That apparently was a lingering vandalism in the version I reverted to in order to deal with a broad trolling that had altered a few paragraphs of text. The Dark 19:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what?

guys this article is in need of some changes. in the 5th paragraph down last sentance there is no information, what happened to them? GuyDoe 20:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

also taylor,sarah, and casy this talk page is about the scottsboro trials butwikipedia is the best site ever... wiki powerGuyDoe 20:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor's Testimony

As I happen to be doing a paper on this case, I found it interesting that the testimony of Dr. R. R. Bridges, considered to be a key component of the trial, was not mentioned. To enlighten anyone who may not know this, Dr. Bridges took the stand for the prosecution, but upon cross-examination was effectively turned into a witness for the defense, after admitting that the semen found in the two womens' bodies were immobile and that they showed no signs of assault. Since I'm new, I'm hesitant to add this. Any thoughts? Corvus coronoides 00:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Edwin Horton

Hello all. I've created a page for Judge James Edwin Horton, the presiding judge for the re-trials of the Scottsboro Boys. Please feal free to contribute (it needs it). Also, if anyone can work in a link, it would be great! Thanks, C0N6R355 17:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leibowitz's death and Over-all Structure

Samuel Leibowitz became a justice on the New York Supreme Court before his death in 1962.

This statement is ambiguous. Did he become a justice in 1962 or did he die in 1962? The article on Leibowitz says that he died on January 11th 1978, so it would seem that he became a justice in 1962. However, I don't have any raw data on Leibowitz. Could someone who knows the facts please edit either this article or the Leibowitz article to better represent those facts.

Even if he did die in 1962, the sentence is poorly written and should be broken up. It is also a poor ending to a very important article, and the article's over-all stucture should be evaluated. A lot of information is presented twice and incoherently. Major work should have been done on this article before it appeared on the Main Page. Tdmg 05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screaming in their faces?

"The parents of the Boys as well as Bates would eventually make tours and speeches screaming in the faces of the southerners, to let the boys go. This however, backfired, which instead of softening the hearts of the southerners, turned their backs up and hardened them."

This needs to be re-written, proved, or dropped. Seems more like pulp fiction than anything else.

[edit] Found innocent or paroled?

The introduction seems to disagree with the "event" section's closing line. Were some of the defendants paroled or pardoned, or did the Supreme Court find all the men innocent and set them free?

From the introduction:

All of the defendants were eventually acquitted, paroled, or pardoned (besides one who simply escaped), some after serving years in prison

From the event:

All the men appealed their verdicts. The cases were sent to the Surpreme Court and there all the men were found innocent and set free.

--C paul butler 16:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar check?

Could someone please edit this article's sentences? Many of them are run-on sentences. Here's a good example:

This time one of the accusers, Ruby Bates, after disappearing for a time to escape from the pressure and the media attention, returned to testify in court and recanted her earlier testimony, now stating that she and Price had lied about being raped because they were afraid that, since they were found on a train with other homeless men where one party of homeless men was violently removed, and since they were homeless themselves, they might be charged with some offense.

Thanks!

I fixed the sentence. bibliomaniac15 03:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Weems

They were arrested in 1931, he was paroled in 1943, so how could have "served 20 years in some of the worst prisons in the nation"? Unless his time in the "worst prisons" was a result of this conviction, it should be deleted as irrelevant and the sentence should end with "...paroled in 1943." Esaons (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a couple of concerns about the overall coherency of this article. A confusing paragraph not already mentioned is the one below (with some parts removed). In bold are the contradictory statements

"The NAACP first characterized the defendants as guilty ... The NAACP never gave any support to any defendant in this trial. The International Labor Defense (the legal arm of the Communist Party USA handled the defense but struggled to gain and retain the support of the boys and their parents; the ILD eventually won the support of the defendants and the NAACP dropped out of the case, despite their having secured Clarence Darrow as the boys' lawyer. The ILD chose a different defense team, meaning Darrow was out of the case. With the backing of these large groups ...

So did the NAACP give the boys support or not? They went to the trouble of getting Clarence Darrow onside (apparently), and then provided "backing" - but apparently "never gave any support to any defendant". This needs clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.81.254 (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ILD?

The article references the "ILD", but it doesn't explain what that is. What is it? LonelyPker (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked it up, and apparently it's the "International Labor Defense", which served as the legal arm of the US Communist Party. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? LonelyPker (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)