Anti-lynch law is hung on a technicality

I am so glad the U.S. Congress bravely passed a bill — the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act — to outlaw lynching, and President Joe Biden courageously signed it into law. Emmett Till was a victim of lynching.

Lynching is defined as an extrajudicial killing by a group, most often used to characterize public executions by a mob in order to punish an alleged transgressor, punish a convicted transgressor, or intimidate people.

Lynching was once an American institution

In other words, it is homicide, which is already illegal in all 50 states.

The last reported lynching in the U.S. was in 1981, 41 years ago, and resulted in death penalties and life sentences for the perpetrators — absent a lynching law. 

I recently read that some people refer to the 2020 murder of Ahmaud Arbery as a lynching.

OK. Here are the facts.

All three white perpetrators were convicted of felony murder. Two were sentenced to life with no parole, and one got 30 years. That was followed by a conviction in a federal “hate crimes” trial, and the three still will be tried for state hate crimes.

Shall we add the one-time American institution of lynching to the three trials and make it four? Does this advance the cause of justice?

How many life sentences are required for justice? How much wasted court time and legal expense do we need?

So-called hate crimes are cleverly interpreted to avoid the Constitutional guarantee of double jeopardy, which is protection from being prosecuted twice for the same crime. Or thrice.

It is hung on the technicality that ”hate crimes” are different crimes from the main crimes.

No matter the good intentions, that’s a crock.

A “hate crime” is defined as a prejudice-motivated crime that targets victims because of their membership in a certain social group or demographic.

George Floyd’s murder was not a “hate crime,” but the officers involved were convicted nevertheless.

The only time federal “hate crimes” should be invoked is when you have a case, like Emmett Till’s murder in 1955 Mississippi, when getting a fair trial is impossible.

It is no longer 1955 in Mississippi. 

The no-point, feel-good anti-lynching law is redundant, unnecessary, and actually counter to fairness and equal protection under the law.

Its negatives outweigh its benefits. 

17 thoughts on “Anti-lynch law is hung on a technicality”

    A well written blog for sure, but I have to disagree in part.
    First: I want the death penalty and I want it carried out immediately. Never mind my taxes – and yours harbor a ‘lower life form’ such as everyone’s favorite, Wesley Cook, AKA mumia abu-jamal. It used to take Pennsylvania ten years to execute a person on death row. Thanks to liberal governors, there’s no death penalty in existence here in the Commonwealth. Therefore, I propose to allow our police trainees to have some real target practice. No firing squad. Nothing honorable, because murder is way down on the honor roll. In plain english. Here, hold this target.
    BTW I volunteer.

  2. Here are FIFTY more really good reason to have a ACTIVE death penalty.
    from the website; Officer Down Memorial Page
    as of today, nationwide:
    Total Line of Duty Deaths: 91
    Accidental 1
    Aircraft accident 1
    Automobile crash 9
    COVID19 50
    Gunfire 16
    Gunfire (Inadvertent) 1
    Heart attack 2
    Struck by vehicle 2
    Vehicle pursuit 2
    Vehicular assault 6
    Yes. I have family in law enforcement. Always did. Always will.

  3. Stu, this bill is all about virtue signaling. Is there anyone in favor of lynching?
    Since you and I don’t plan to run for office, we can tell it like it is. Any pol who pointed out the truth the way you did would be accused of supporting lynching.

  4. First, I totally agree. Murder is murder, whether it’s motivated by a hatred of race, religion, a sex — whatever. And the interminable prosecuting of those three murdering bozos is a waste of taxpayer money. They’re never gonna get out of prison anyway and finding them guilty of hate crimes will not add any thing but virtue signaling to the mix. On the other hand, on the bright side, it’s about time our lawmakers did something besides attack African American Supreme Court judges who are way smarter and classier than they. And I guess I’m confused because I didn’t see anything in your piece about the death penalty. Did Anthony see something I did not?

    1. HAPPY SUNDAY !!!
      Once again I drifted off course a tad. Yesterday we lost another cop.
      I have read that over the years, some prisoners have opted for lynching, though I don’t know when the last neck was stretched. If given the opportunity, I would put the noose around a neck ( or two ). I believe in the death penalty. I don’t agree with the aclu in treating the prisoners ‘inhumanely’. If you committed murder, you WILL pay with your life. If you take a life of a police officer, whether you were driving drunk or pointing a gun, you are dead. Sooner the better.
      BTW. I have read that rooms in a prison run from $20,000 to $ 40,000 per year per inmate. I think that that number is low. When I build the prisons here in Philly, back in the ’90s, a minimum security room for one inmate was about $20,000. Prices go up, not down.

  5. I agree with you, Stu, that the law is a redundancy and seems to just be virtue signaling. As you ask, Is anyone in favor of lynching.
    I also feel the same way about Women’s Equal Rights Amendments. I believe women are already covered by the laws of the United States and haven’t seen anything to the contrary.

  6. Thank you for addressing the issue of so-called ‘hate crimes.’ That definition is Orwellian, and (as you say) designed to try a person twice for the same crime — making a joke of double jeopardy. For example: I ask how OJ Simpson could be found not guilty of murder in criminal court, but guilty in civil court? He either did it or he didn’t. Can’t have it both ways– or can you?

  7. Vince, this is from Petrillo & Goldberg Law:

    Murder is classified as a criminal act that the government will prosecute on behalf of the people. The burden of proof for guilt in a murder trial is the much higher standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Whether or not that standard is met in a criminal trial, the defendant charged with murder can still be sued in a wrongful death action in civil court, in which the burden of proof for liability is the lower standard of “a preponderance of the evidence.”

    1. Balderdash. Lawyers write the law for lawyers, and it shows. The OJ case is the proof.

      1. HAPPY MONDAY !!!
        I’m sure that you are quite aware that there are at least two levels of the law ( ? justice ? ). Those that got and those that don’t got. I know this to be true. Over the years, I’ve been there and done that.
        This is why I keep saying, “I want the best LEGAL minds to sit on the Supreme Court. I don’t think that biden’s choice is the best choice.

  8. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) tweeted the baseless accusation that GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Susan Collins (Maine) and Mitt Romney (Utah) are “pro-pedophile” because they said will vote to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court.

    This B!TCH (Greene) is getting worse and worse.

    1. Blame the idiot voters. They gave us Greene and Biden, proving that stupidity knows no party.

      1. Vince, I completely agree with what you said about stupidity knowing no party. While not going into specifics I have seen much idiocy across both parties.

Comments are closed.