Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
No, that title wasn't ripped from the mid-20th century, it's actually from this week. Last year, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Tim Scott introduced a new anti-lynching legislation to the Senate. The bill would pass unanimously, and Representative Bobby Rush would later present it to the House of Representatives, where it too would pass. It is now being finalized to be sent to the President to be officially signed into law, standing on the back of 120 years worth of past attempts. The bill has been titled the Emmett Till Antilynching Act, and is named after the infamous brutal lynching of 14 year old Emmett Till in 1955.
The effort to pass similar legislations stretches all the way back to the very beginning of the 20th century, and possesses a unique history. The first attempt was by Representative George Henry White, the only Black member of Congress at the time, who proposed for lynching to be prosecuted on a federal level. This bill would die in committee. Years later, another anti-lynching bill would pass through the House, only to be filibustered in the Senate by Southern Democrats, who claimed that it stood in opposition to state rights. Similar instances would occur over 200 times. Thus, this is largely being viewed as a symbolic victory, serving as a stand against bigotry, both historical and present.
However, the bill did not pass unanimously in Congress, with 4 representatives rejecting it, and 16 choosing not to vote at all. Among the 3 Republicans and single independent who voted against it, they have stated that they believe the bill to be the government overreaching and federalizing criminal law. An example can be seen in Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who stated "...this bill expands current federal 'hate crime' laws. A crime is a crime, and all victims deserve equal justice. Adding enhanced penalties for 'hate' tends to endanger other liberties, such as freedom of speech." The four have received heavy criticism as a result, yet continue to stand by their vote. Nonetheless, the bill has officially passed through congress, marking a historic ending to an ongoing battle which has lasted more than a century.
1) Do you believe that the bill is an example of government overreach?
2) What precedents do you think are set by the passing of this legislation?
3) What implications do you think the bill's history has on the United State's past pertaining to Civil Rights?
2 comments:
Something I find interesting is in the US, the law makes a distinction between 1st and 2nd Degrees of murder, and it considers a premeditated murder (1st Degree) to be more brutal and is punished more heavily. The thing about lynchings is they're generally not planned in advance, because they're never about the person specifically, but some descriptive characteristic. In a 1st degree murder, the murderer and victim have some connection strong enough to warrant planning a death, and in 2nd-degree murder, the connection has to be strong enough to warrant a crime of passion. To simplify more than I should, the law seems to consider a more personal killing to be a worse one. But lynchings are unthinkably brutal, and it's strangers killing strangers. It makes sense, then, to have that "enhanced penalty." They are unique from the way murders are usually considered.
I don’t think this is an example of government overreach. I feel that it’s good that the government came into place and set restrictions to these treacherous acts. However, I can definitely see that the implementation of this bill will have a bad impact on American history. It is embarrassing that we have to set laws in order to prevent cruel acts like lynching. Moreover, knowing there is a history in lynching due to racism and civil rights, people who first hear about this law would more closely relate this to our history. But for those who learn that the law was set because of recent occurrences, it is even more embarrassing.
Post a Comment