three republicans voted against making lynching a hate crime

[TX-Beau]

Perhaps I can help to explain. Canada has 'Hate Crime' legislation, and there is a big difference between the actual crime and the hate crime. In this case, the actual crime is lynching, and those who do it are punished. The 'hate crime' applies to those who incite the people to commit the crime and, in Canada, the punishments can be quite severe. Also, in Canada, the Hate Crime legislation applies to every single Canadian. Even our politicians, from Justin Trudeau on down, are subject to the laws and punishments.

That's what makes making lynching a hate crime undoubtedly means. There is a difference between the crime and the hate crime.

These are Canada's Hate Crime laws: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html

"Lynching" wasn't a crime at all before that legislation was passed. Arbrey's murderers were not charged with lynching. Historically it's been all but impossible to pass that specific law. For obvious reasons.

Hate crime laws here add an enhancement to an existing crime - like there's assault, aggravated assault, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Federal hate crime laws also allow the Fed to impose their jurisdiction on state courts that can't or won't charge or convict.

 

[frankfrank]

Lynching isn't even a legal criminal term, I don't think.

And, another case in point why this law is necessary, and it also needs to consider the terrible "kangaroo courts" which ride a suspect on the Hot Rails to Hell. In this case, it was the state that first stole this ADLOESCENT'S life from him (for a crime he didn't commit, and without evidence, but just so they could, as they probably said among themselves, "get rid of another n*****"). Murdering his cellmate when he was bitter and terrified and felt that he had nothing to lose, got him into the Chair, but her shouldn't have been in prison in the first place.

He "didn't get along with his cellmate" - what does anybody, here, want to bet that his cellmate was considerably older than this CHILD, who was being repeatedly raped by this man? That's what I see when I read between the lines. (This fact, about him killing his cellmate, was in a story linked by this post. I've lost that link...)

This kind of justice STILL GOES ON in this sorry-ass country. This law is necessary. (emphasis below is mine. Full story is posted, because other comments keep "sinking" this post down in the queue and you wouldn't be able to find it...)

https://www.quora.com/What-picture-made-your-blood-boil




Arianna Mancinelli






Answered 1 year ago

This was George Stinney Jr, he was executed in 1944 by electric chair. He was convicted of murdering 2 young girls ages 7 and 11. He was only 14 when the police came for him. He had a two hour trial and 10 minute jury deliberation before being named guilty.

Only 84 days after the girls’ murder he was executed. He was only 5′ and not yet 100 lbs, having to sit on books to reach the headpiece.
70 years later, in 2014, he was found not guilty. The police had framed him since he was black. It was said to never be questioned until much later.
This story always leaves me in tears. The black and white photo is of George Stinney, the color photos are from a modern reenactment. Rest In Peace!

 

[frankfrank]

And yes, unloadonme, you understood my post correctly: *MOST* CIVILIAN MURDER TRIALS IN THE USA are tried in state or local courts, because federal MURDER statutes only apply to some crimes, and the high-profile ones we've been talking about aren't any of these.

The anti-lynching law may add an eleventh provision to the below, because it would be a murder done during the act of committing a hate crime. I think it would actually be a new federal murder rap, rather than being prosecuted "only" as a hate crime, which can indeed have some rather heavy sentencing on their own. Interesting that for a murder to be eligible for federal prosecution, there seems to have been some picking and choosing which federal crimes escalate a related murder to possible federal prosecution. Drug trafficking which is a federal crime, or bank robbery, is covered, but murders committed as part of a federal hater crime seem NOT to be. Why is that? Also interesting that there's no federal murder rap for assassination of a STATE-level elected official or judge.

This does not cover murders within the military, which I believe are ALWAYS a federal crime, tried by the military under its Court-Martial system.

But...WHAT?...murdering any member of the U. S. Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Marines, Air Force) while they are in uniform, is not a federal crime? HUH???? How is that possible? I mean, killing a cop is...and these people are also OFFICERS, who are employed by the U. S. Government. FRANK-ly speaking, I'm puzzled...

I also don't see anything saying that a murder on federal property is a federal crime, either. Did these attorneys leaver some things out?

https://www.wklaw.com/10-ways-murder-becomes-a-federal-crime/

1. Murder Of An Elected/Appointed Federal Official (18 U.S.C. Section 351, 1751)

2. Murder Of A Federal Judge Or Law Enforcement Official (18 U.S.C. Section 1114)

3. Killing Of Law Enforcement Officials, or An Immediate Family Member Of Law Enforcement Officials (18 U.S.C. Section 115(B)(3))
it also protects their family members from threats or retaliation intended to influence the law enforcement official into dropping their investigation.

4. A Killing Designed To Influence The Outcome Of A Court Case (18 U.S.C. Section 1512)
Federal law also prohibits murders of court officers and jurors, or killings that are intended to prevent testimony from a witness, police informant, or a victim. In addition, it is also a federal crime to commit murder in retaliation for testimony given at a trial.

5. A Killing Committed During Bank Robbery (18 U.S.C. Section 1111)
Bank robbery itself is a federal crime as well as a felony. A murder committed during the course of a bank robbery can result in federal charges.

This includes the killing of any staff, security guards, or customers in the bank, any murders of hostages, or any killings made during the attempt to escape law enforcement.

6. Murder Related To Rape, Child Molestation, And Sexual Exploitation Of Children (18 U.S.C. Section 2248, 2251)
Murder during a sex crime such as kidnapping is a federal crime.

A federal murder charge can occur when the underlying felony that led to the victim’s death is rape, or if the murder occurs in the course of the commission of a sexual crime against a child.

If the murder is related to the transportation or transmission of illegal contraband such as child pornography, it can be charged as a federal crime.

7. Murder Aboard A Ship (18 U.S.C. Section 2280)
“an offense against maritime navigation.” If a murder occurs during a crime that threatens the safe travel of a ship either in U.S. waters, or if the victim is a U.S. national regardless of where the ship is when the murder takes place, the homicide can be charged under federal law.

8. Drug-Related Murders (18 U.S.C. Section 36, 924(I))

9. Murder For Hire (18 U.S.C. Section 1958)
If the killing can only be accomplished by causing a person to travel over state lines (including the victim), or by communicating the request by phone, mail, or the Internet, the murder-for-hire could be a federal crime.

10. Murder By Mail (18 U.S.C. Section 1716) anthrax, mail b0mbs, etc.

 

[TX-Beau]

...but murders committed as part of a federal hater crime seem NOT to be. Why is that? Also interesting that there's no federal murder rap for assassination of a STATE-level elected official or judge.

This does not cover murders within the military, which I believe are ALWAYS a federal crime, tried by the military under its Court-Martial system.

But...WHAT?...murdering any member of the U. S. Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Marines, Air Force) while they are in uniform, is not a federal crime? HUH???? How is that possible? I mean, killing a cop is...and these people are also OFFICERS, who are employed by the U. S. Government. FRANK-ly speaking, I'm puzzled...

I also don't see anything saying that a murder on federal property is a federal crime, either. Did these attorneys leaver some things out?

My understanding is that crimes on Military property go to the DOD not the DOJ. Crimes on Native reservations go to the DOJ. IIRC murder on Federal property is a Federal crime, that would be like national parks, buildings etc, crimes that cross borders are Fed, or on US flagged vessels in non territorial spaces, but that doesn't mean the Fed wants jurisdiction over every little thing. A lot of times even when the Fed can assert jurisdiction they don't. There used to be a huge problem with Meth trafficking on reservations. Since Native cops have no authority over White people they couldn't arrest the dealers, raid the labs, or even search the mules. This is triply Federal - it's on a reservation, it's drug trafficking, it crosses State and international borders, but the FBI had no interest in making that any kind of priority. Getting the Fed to investigate a murder on a reservation was also a near impossibility - hopefully things have changed, but I doubt it.

The Constitution doesn't specify the Fed as the primary unit of state, thanks to the FF's, so the Fed only gets to assert supremacy in areas that have been specifically defined to allow it. If there was no political will to pass a specific exception, there is no Federal Supremacy.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

I should have guessed this would have something to do with race.

If you know white people who are lynched because they're white by all means start a civil rights group.

If a white person murders a black person, it's to be automatically treated as a hate crime and a more serious murder than if a white person murders another white person. Is that it?

An unfair judicial system? That sounds horrible. I couldn't imagine.

Anyway white violence against brown people has never been widely illegal/prosecuted hence the need for these laws. Anyone who understands history and respects and values people of color supports it. The usual suspects are against it for reasons obvious to everyone but themselves.

 

[rareboy]

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

I assume that lynching is already illegal.

You're incorrect. White violence against black people has never been criminalized or penalized by the judicial system. that's why ahmed aubrey's murderers were sure they'd get away with it. they filmed it because subconsciously they knew america has always forgiven racist violence. Lynching is a specific act with a specific history tied to domestic terrorism and racism, a part of history america has yet to reconcile, case in point. *gestures all around*

 

[rareboy]

People unfamiliar with the wild west America don't get it.

 

[TX-Beau]

Lynching was an explicit act of State supported terrorism aimed at Black people to remind them of their subordinate status - which was reinforced with the ubiquitous and deliberate, and sometimes gleeful denial of justice that followed.

It was and is a tool of apartheid. We spent all that time arguing about removing statues erected during Jim Crow, statues erected for the exact same reason. Cops that murder with impunity got a pass because they were the stormtroopers of Jim Crow, the voter suppression, polling taxes, literacy tests, the redlining and denial of credit, segregation, racist laws and statutes - it's impossible to hide Jim Crow - it literally touched everything from God to drinking fountains.

I admit I'm pretty offended by White people who nit-pick at little parts of it and pretend it wasn't what we all know it was, and that it's somehow irrelevant to the problems we're still having.

The same way I get offended by Europeans who pretend that our racial contention didn't sail right out of their ports.

 

[unloadonme]

White violence against black people has never been criminalized or penalized by the judicial system.

Is that actually true? I can fully appreciate that the American judicial system may not always have pursued such law breaking as diligently as it should, but that's a different matter to saying that violence against black people was not unlawful.

... that's why ahmed aubrey's murderers were sure they'd get away with it. they filmed it because subconsciously they knew america has always forgiven racist violence.

They were proved wrong. Ahmaud Arbery's attackers were each convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

 

[TX-Beau]

Is that actually true? I can fully appreciate that the American judicial system may not always have pursued such law breaking as diligently as it should, but that's a different matter to saying that violence against black people was not unlawful.



They were proved wrong. Ahmaud Arbery's attackers were each convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

What exactly is your deal? Are you opposed to hate crime laws for some reason? The above is just minimization, and looks like the same old willful denial.

 

[unloadonme]

I'm opposed to murders, lynchings and any other hate crime you could mention. My deal is that those crimes were crimes already and I still can't see what difference the new law makes.

 

[TX-Beau]

I'm opposed to murders, lynchings and any other hate crime you could mention. My deal is that those crimes were crimes already and I still can't see what difference the new law makes.

This is pretty much what I thought. This isn't being opposed to lynching, this is being opposed to making any effort to stop it.

Fucking obviously the existing laws and system WERE NOT EVEN ARRESTING the hater racist murderers but oh well, c'est la vie, it's already illegal, so sorry so sad.

That's bullshit.

 

[unloadonme]

So you're saying that the cops will make more of an effort to enforce the new law than they ever did with the old ones?

 

[TX-Beau]

So you're saying that the cops will make more of an effort to enforce the new law than they ever did with the old ones?

Bias crime legislation isn't aimed at cops, obviously. It's aimed at giving the FED the opportunity to do what the cops won't, it's aimed at making bigots think about their own welfare before they murder someone for entertainment.

I find your confusion strange; every crime has distinctions and supplements in law to deal with context. It's frankly glaringly odd that you somehow have an issue with this, and aren't complaining that burglary is "already illegal," so why bother adding on the deadly weapon enhancement? Assault is "already illegal" so why bother with assaulting a minor?

It's a red fucking herring argument that is hiding what?

 

[gsdx]

I'm opposed to murders, lynchings and any other hate crime you could mention. My deal is that those crimes were crimes already and I still can't see what difference the new law makes.

To put it simply (and I assume the situation is the same in the US as it is in Canada), murder is a crime with specific consequences. The 'hate crime' law gives another avenue for conviction of that crime without breaking the 'double jeopardy' rule. Murder and hate crime is not the same crime, so no double jeopardy. They can be tried again following an acquittal with different rules and consequences.

 

[TX-Beau]

To put it simply (and I assume the situation is the same in the US as it is in Canada), murder is a crime with specific consequences. The 'hate crime' law gives another avenue for conviction of that crime without breaking the 'double jeopardy' rule. Murder and hate crime is not the same crime, so no double jeopardy. They can be tried again following an acquittal with different rules and consequences.

In the U.S, you can't be tried for the same crime twice. If a bigot gets acquitted of a lynching in the State courts, the FED can't then prosecute for the murder, but can prosecute for violation of Civil Rights or some incident related issue the FED has been authorized to pursue in the FED Penal Code. Double Jeopardy attaches once there is an empaneled jury or witness, and applies to the act, not the prosecution of it. In other words you can't get around it by legally re-defining what murder is - or maybe that could happen, I know of no examples of that being attempted.

Usually though if the defense thinks there will be no justice they will try to change the venue or the FED can assert jurisdiction under the terms of the Bias crime law. This assumes of course that the DOJ isn't being run by someone like Barr, appointed by someone like the toad.

In Canada Apparently you do have actual Hate CRIMES, but in the U.S. there is crime then there is Bias enhancement. Which is why it's so hard to prosecute bigots who incite and never participate.

 

[gsdx]

^It's not the same crime. The crime is the lynching. The hate crime is the incitement of the lynching. No double jeopardy.

Google Tom Metzger. He was the Grand Wizard of the KKK in the 1970s. He was convicted of inciting the clubbing murder of an Ethiopian student named Mulugeta Seraw in Portland, Oregon. Skinheads committed the crime. Metzger committed the incitement. Different crimes.

 

[TX-Beau]

^It's not the same crime. The crime is the lynching. The hate crime is the incitement of the lynching. No double jeopardy.

Google Tom Metzger. He was the Grand Wizard of the KKK in the 1970s. He was convicted of inciting the clubbing murder of an Ethiopian student named Mulugeta Seraw in Portland, Oregon. Skinheads committed the crime. Metzger committed the incitement. Different crimes.

This is all persnickety, nit-picky stuff, unfortunately our laws function largely by parsing nomenclature. You are right they are completely different crimes with no Double Jeopardy issues hate or no hate; incitement is not a "hate" crime in the U.S, nor is murder; a "hate crime" requires first a crime, then a malicious motivation that can be proven, which triggers the stipulations of any applicable Bias crime legislation. The crime does not become a different crime, or two separate crimes. Incitement would only apply to a third party.

I seriously doubt there was a hate crime enhancement on incitement back then, I'd have to look to see if there is one now. Murder definitely has bias enhancements at the state and Fed level. But it remains that if the hater is acquitted by a State Court, the Fed does not then get to re-visit the murder under a different name.

All the examples I'm finding of specific incitement to hate crimes come from UK, Canada, Australia, Germany etc. - it's certainly possible that there are U.S. jurisdictions where there might be one, that's just a cursory look.

I believe in Canada you can and will be prosecuted for saying something hater inspiring? Incitement here requires subsequent action, you can't be prosecuted for saying hater shit here UNLESS it can be proven there was malicious intent to inspire an underlying crime that's already been committed - incitement to riot comes closest, but even there I believe there has to actually be a riot. If I'm looking at this correctly, you in Canada can be prosecuted for saying hater shit whether or not someone goes out and murders someone.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Bias crime legislation isn't aimed at cops, obviously. It's aimed at giving the FED the opportunity to do what the cops won't, it's aimed at making bigots think about their own welfare before they murder someone for entertainment.

I find your confusion strange; every crime has distinctions and supplements in law to deal with context. It's frankly glaringly odd that you somehow have an issue with this, and aren't complaining that burglary is "already illegal," so why bother adding on the deadly weapon enhancement? Assault is "already illegal" so why bother with assaulting a minor?

It's a red fucking herring argument that is hiding what?

that was about as concise as concise gets