• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Biden To Sign Emmett Till Bill Making Lynching a Federal Hate Crime

Atomic Kid said:
Like hell you have. It's within the federal government's jurisdiction because it is now categorized as being the hate crime that it has always been. The crossing of state lines doesn't have an f-ing thing to do with it.
Click to expand...
Show me where in the Constitution that specifically gives the federal government this power. If you can't, then the 10A applies and it's a state matter.
 
Crovax said:
I did read it unlike you, "Under the bill, an offense can be prosecuted as a lynching when the offender conspires to commit a hate crime that results in someone's death or serious bodily injury under this bill."

Guess what conspiracy to commit murder is already a crime. Redundant laws are redundant no matter the good intentions
Click to expand...

It's ridiculous that anyone thinks putting redundancy into law was needed.
Lynching is already outlawed. This law isn't a win for society. I think passing this was more of a symbolic gesture than anything.... aka a waste of taxpayer money. :rolleyes:
 
American said:
In other news, no lynching has been reported since the 1981 lynching of Michael Donald.
Click to expand...

If this legislation was so important, how come it wasn't in effect then? Passing it now is no victory for the country no matter how many times Schumer bloviates over it.
 
Ahlevah said:
[ad hominem comment removed] You were referring to the murder of Emmett Till and the “Emmett Till Anti-lynching Act,” were you not? My point was Till wasn’t actually “lynched” as much as he was murdered, at least not according to the historical meaning of the word.
Click to expand...
Then perhaps you should have made THAT point, and to someone who was arguing otherwise. The point being made was that lynching is not a current problem... and even the namesake incident of this bill died in 1955 - 67 years ago.

If it helps though, the bill doesn't actually address 'lynching' or make anything new a crime. They literally just stuck the word 'lynching' in it. and slapped on a title referencing Emmett Till. That particular section may come into play once a decade. Purely an election show bill.
 
dcsports said:
[ad hominem comment removed]
Click to expand...

Seriously? 😅 Okay, bro. Sorry if I hurt your feelings by asking if you were being disingenuous.

dcsports said:
Then perhaps you should have made THAT point…
Click to expand...

I did, but you seemed to have missed it.

dcsports said:
… and to someone who was arguing otherwise.
Click to expand...

Why? You pointed out that the law related its title to a purported lynching. I was just pointing out that the law is misnamed, and your post was a good opportunity to do that.

dcsports said:
The point being made was that lynching is not a current problem... and even the namesake incident of this bill died in 1955 - 67 years ago.
Click to expand...

Duh. I would argue the law should have gone back further, because Till’s “lynching” wasn’t actually a lynching in the historical meaning of the word.

dcsports said:
If it helps though, the bill doesn't actually address 'lynching' or make anything new a crime. They literally just stuck the word 'lynching' in it. and slapped on a title referencing Emmett Till. That particular section may come into play once a decade. Purely an election show bill.
Click to expand...

You’re not saying anything I don’t agree with. I guess you just like to argue.
 
Last edited:
Ahlevah said:
Seriously? 😅 Okay, bro. Sorry if I hurt your feelings by asking if you were being disingenuous.



I did, but you seemed to have missed it.



Why? You pointed out that the law related its title to a purported lynching. I was just pointing out that the law is misnamed, and your post was a good opportunity to do that.



Duh. I would argue the law should have gone back further.



You’re not saying anything I don’t agree with. I guess you just like to argue.
Click to expand...
lol. I think the point of your post is that YOU like to argue. Line by line apparently. Again, my first post in this exchange wasn't to you, and your response had nothing to do with what I posted.

Take care.
 
dcsports said:
lol. I think the point of your post is that YOU like to argue. Take care.
Click to expand...

No, man. I only argue with idiots I don’t agree with. But I don’t mind using any post to make a point. You simply misunderstood my intent.
 
does everyone now understand who this law pisses off the most?
 
I was pretty sure the usual suspects would be outraged by this law.
 
trixare4kids said:
It's ridiculous that anyone thinks putting redundancy into law was needed.
Lynching is already outlawed. This law isn't a win for society. I think passing this was more of a symbolic gesture than anything.... aka a waste of taxpayer money. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
What about lynchings that go unpunished because the locals didn't do justice and the feds weren't allowed to intervene?
 
Deuce said:
What about lynchings that go unpunished because the locals didn't do justice and the feds weren't allowed to intervene?
Click to expand...

The Feds could intervene in such a case. They could file criminal civil rights violation charges under Title 18 Chapter 13 of the United States Code.
 
Deuce said:
What about lynchings that go unpunished because the locals didn't do justice and the feds weren't allowed to intervene?
Click to expand...
Not sure that happens. As noted previously, "lynchings" are now incredibly rare - some would argue the last documented one happened decades ago.

Do you have an example in mind?
 
dcsports said:
Not sure that happens. As noted previously, "lynchings" are now incredibly rare - some would argue the last documented one happened decades ago.

Do you have an example in mind?
Click to expand...
Ahmad Arbury.

(contrary to popular belief, the definition of lynching does not actually require hanging)
 
Deuce said:
Ahmad Arbury.

(contrary to popular belief, the definition of lynching does not actually require hanging)
Click to expand...
You could argue that this was a "lynching" - something that's still rare.

But how exactly was this ignored by local officials? In that case, all three of the people involved were convicted on multiple counts. Two sentenced to life without parole (plus 20 years), and the third life with the possibility of parole after 30 years (He's 53).

These people were also convicted under federal hate crime laws. While this new penalty COULD apply.... increasing the maximum penalty for the hate crime convictions... what difference would it make?
 
dcsports said:
You could argue that this was a "lynching" - something that's still rare.

But how exactly was this ignored by local officials? In that case, all three of the people involved were convicted on multiple counts. Two sentenced to life without parole (plus 20 years), and the third life with the possibility of parole after 30 years (He's 53).
Click to expand...
It was straight up buried by the local officials until the video went public.

dcsports said:
These people were also convicted under federal hate crime laws. While this new penalty COULD apply.... increasing the maximum penalty for the hate crime convictions... what difference would it make?
Click to expand...
This isn't the only case in the world.
 
Ahlevah said:
And that use of the term is a departure from the previous typical understanding of it. As late as the first half of the 20th Century, “lynching” was historically understood to be a mob-organized extrajudicial killing for someone suspected of having committed a capital crime. As the U.S. expanded westward in the 19th Century, it wasn’t like we had territorial judges standing on every street corner, you know? Sometimes bringing a suspect to trial would require either waiting for a judge riding a circuit, or taking the prisoner perhaps hundreds of miles to face justice. Well, to be frank, people didn’t always want to wait.

Since a common means of execution before the 20th Century was by hanging, that method became closely associated with the practice. During the periods of Reconstruction and Jim Crow, lynchings more frequently involved extrajudicial killings of blacks suspected of committing a then capital offense like murder, armed robbery, or rape. (It didn’t always take much. If a black man had sex with a white woman, that could be evidence enough that it was “rape.”) Hence, the meaning then shifted again to having a racial connotation to it. Now, apparently, it’s any group killing involving race or sexual orientation as a motive. One can only ask: why the change—again? I have my own theory that expropriating and shifting the meaning of a word with such an ugly history and connotation to it is being done for purely political reasons.
Click to expand...
Capital crimes like trying to register to vote, not stepping into the Gutter fast enough when a white person came toward them, not averting their eyes when speaking to white folk, being too prosperous for an n-word, etc. Are you suggesting that racism & bigotry are purely political.
 
dcsports said:
Then perhaps you should have made THAT point, and to someone who was arguing otherwise. The point being made was that lynching is not a current problem... and even the namesake incident of this bill died in 1955 - 67 years ago.

If it helps though, the bill doesn't actually address 'lynching' or make anything new a crime. They literally just stuck the word 'lynching' in it. and slapped on a title referencing Emmett Till. That particular section may come into play once a decade. Purely an election show bill.
Click to expand...
I think maybe it has stirred up the racist contingent somewhat. Maybe a deterrent.
 
jpevans said:
Capital crimes like trying to register to vote, not stepping into the Gutter fast enough when a white person came toward them, not averting their eyes when speaking to white folk, being too prosperous for an n-word, etc. Are you suggesting that racism & bigotry are purely political.
Click to expand...

The only thing I’m suggesting is the use of the term “lynching” in this law was done for purely political reasons. Till was not “lynched,” at least not according to the historical meaning of the word.
 
Ahlevah said:
The only thing I’m suggesting is the use of the term “lynching” in this law was done for purely political reasons. Till was not “lynched,” at least not according to the historical meaning of the word.
Click to expand...
It absolutely was done only for PR purposes. The bill doesn't make anything new illegal. It doesn't add anything with regards to 'lynching' other than literally sticking the word in the statute.
 
Is lynching currently a serious problem in the United States?

Does anybody know of anyone who's been lynched recently?

I'd think that deaths from Fentanyl are more prevalent the deaths from lynching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom