1786 жылы 12 жасар қыздың өлім жазасы және нәсілдік әділетсіздік

12 year old American girl executed in 1786

Henry Channing, a minister, published a sermon entitled God Admonishing His People of their Duty a Sermon Occasioned by the Execution of Hannah Ocuish, a Mixed Girl, Aged 12 Years and 9 Months, for the Murder of Eunice Bolles, Aged 6 Years and 6 Months. It describes the negative and racially prejudiced light in which her early life was presented to the court, referring to her Native American mother as an "abandoned creature", and characterizing Ocuish as a fearsome violent criminal who at the age of 6 nearly killed another victim during a robbery of a gold necklace and clothing:

text=AS the Public may wish to be informed more particularly respecting the criminal, Hannah Ocuish, than they have yet been: we have collected the following particulars, which it may not be improper to annex as an appendix to the preceding discourse. She was born at Groton.—Early in life she discovered the maliciousness and cruelty of her disposition: as appears from the following fact, which was represented in evidence before the grand jury. When about six years old, she with a brother about two years older than herself, meeting a little girl at a distance from the neighbourhood, they endeavoured to get away her clothes and a gold necklace which she had on.—After beating the child until they had almost killed her, they stripped her, and disputing about the division of the clothes the child recovered, and getting away came home, covered with blood. This affair was immediately examined into, and the select men of the town concluded to bind them both out. Their mother, who is one of the Pequot tribe of indians, is an abandoned creature, much addicted to the vice of drunkenness.—She, it seems, not liking to have the girl bound out; brought her away and left her at a house, about three miles from the city of New London, promising to return in a few days and take her away again. But she did not return 'till after several months, when urging the family to keep her longer they at length consented.—She continued in this family until she was apprehended for the crime, for which she was executed. Her conduct, as appeared in evidence before the honorable Superior Court was marked with almost every thing bad. Theft and lying were her common vices. To these were added a maliciousness of disposition which made the children in the neighbourhood much afraid of her. She had a degree of artful cunning and sagacity beyond many of her years. —In short, her mind wanted to be properly instructed, and her disposition to be corrected.

One day after the murder, Ocuish was accused of killing Bolles and allegedly confessed. She was arrested for and charged with (indicted by a grand jury for) the murder and was held in pre trial prison. The only inculpatory evidence against her was her confession to the investigators. The confession was never corroborated by anyone besides the investigators. The Fifth Amendment was not available at the time of the events. Her confession reportedly included baiting Bolles with calico, beating her nearly to death with a rock, strangling her to death, and placing rocks to stage an accident. The confession specified that the motive was that Bolles had earlier accused her of the theft of strawberries. The court found her guilty of murder.

Although Ocuish's youth was considered, it could not be a mitigating factor, so the judge decided: "The sparing of you on account of your age would, as the law says, be of dangerous consequence to the public, by holding up an idea, that children might commit such atrocious crimes with impunity." He sentenced Ocuish to death by hanging. Under the state of law at that time, age and disability were not mitigating factors: a reporter wrote, "the age of a criminal was considered inconsequential; swift and relentless punishment was viewed as the only practicable method of keeping the lawless element in check."

On December 20, 1786, as she awaited her execution, Hannah's anxiety grew worse, and she spent most of the day of her hanging in tears. At her execution, she thanked the sheriff for his kindness as she stepped forward to be hanged.

In March 2020, leaders of the New London chapter of the NAACP assembled a group including historians, tribal members, attorneys, and the Connecticut chapter of the Innocence Project to re examine Ocuish's case to attempt to determine Ocuish's guilt and whether or not she received a fair trial. While the NAACP assembled group has cautioned that they may not be able to reach a conclusion, if evidence favors Ocuish's innocence or her receiving an unfair trial, it will be decided whether or not to recommend an exoneration to the Connecticut General Assembly. It has been suggested by the group and by others that her race, age, disability, and gender may have played a role in her conviction and sentence. The group will also attempt to contact remaining descendants of Ocuish and Eunice Bolles.

In a 2023 opinion piece for OddFeed, writer Jessica Suess described reasonable doubt for Hannah Ocuish having committed the murder of Bolles. Suess wrote that the credibility of Ocuish's alleged confession itself is questionable, considering Ocuish reportedly did not corroborate the confession to local minister Henry Channing, who had visited Hannah several times in prison. The article expressed further doubt about the claim that Ocuish was a violent criminal, from the fact that the widow which Ocuish was given to as a servant had not had any complaints over the six years in which she served her. The piece also criticized Ocuish's alleged motive as "weak", stating, "While Eunice may have threatened to tell on Hannah for stealing fruit, this never happened, as the girl faced no consequences for those actions The idea that she could have lured Eunice to a private corner with a piece of calico fabric also seems strange. Based on their previous interaction, Eunice would likely have been suspicious of Hannah and avoided being alone with her."