Anti-lynching bill

looksee

https://www.newsweek.com/lgbt-anti-lynching-bill-evangelical-liberty-counsel-mat-staver-gay-rights-1286188

An anti-lynching bill is being introduced in the US, apparently the latest in a long list of similar bills that have been introduced but not passed in the US over the past century. It does seem that now anyone involved in a lynching can be tried for murder, but the act of lynching - killing someone by a gang of more than three people for reasons of race, religion or similar - has not been made an offence.

That is as I understand it from what I have just read, it did not occur to me it had not been dealt with under law in the US.

What is even more mind-boggling is that a group of so-called Christians, or at any rate evangelicals, are trying to get the LGBT reference/protection removed from the bill. I cannot entirely understand on what basis - are they suggesting that it should be ok to lynch LGBT people?

It would seem obvious that it is not ok for a gang of people to lynch anyone, for any reason at all, but apparently this is not the case. Their argument seems to be that giving LGBT people any rights at all will bring down civilisation, and this is the thin end of the wedge. I would prefer to argue that giving weight to the opinions of Evangelicals is likely to bring down civilisation, does that make it ok for me to organise a posse after them?

This is the country that sees itself as natural leader to the rest of us, the country that claims freedom and rights as the basis of its society, when in fact in many respects we have left them a hundred years behind us.

Am I misunderstanding something here? What is the base-line thinking on lynching? Is it still legal in the US for a self-appointed gang to kill someone on the basis of their race (the usual reason for lynching)? Is a bill needed - do the laws on murder cover the situation? I doubt whether there are specific anti-lynching laws in European countries, but we really have not had the history of lynching that there has been in the US.

seamus

The aim of removing LGBT from the bill is to try and erase their legitimacy. In other words a crime against someone because of their sexual orientation should not be considered in a special category, because sexual orientation is a choice. The more equal rights of LGBT people are explicitly called out, the harder it is to discriminate against them.

Thus if someone was lynched due to being gay, this group would not like it to be a specific crime because the victim is a gay. Still a crime of murder, just not a lynching because that would be giving legitimacy to homosexuality.

The irony is that these people would support protection for religion, which IS a choice, while trying to remove protection for sexual orientation, which is not.

Lawmaking in the US is odd anyway. They pin unrelated laws together and vote on them as one, and it's all a bit crazy. If anything is even remotely controversial, then it ends up being parked and not touched for decades until/unless the supreme court tells them to fix it.

I'm sure in the 1950s an anti-lynching bill was controversial in parts of the rust belt, hence why it sat untouched for so long.

blanch152

Why is a law against lynching being proposed? As far as I know, we don't have one in Ireland. Should we be introducing one too?

Peregrinus

blanch152 wrote: »

Why is a law against lynching being proposed? As far as I know, we don't have one in Ireland. Should we be introducing one too?

Countries generally only legislatate against crimes, the commission of which is a real-world problem for them. The US has lynchings; Ireland does not.

blanch152

Peregrinus wrote: »

Countries generally only legislatate against crimes, the commission of which is a real-world problem for them. The US has lynchings; Ireland does not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching

"Lynching is a premeditated extrajudicial killing by a group."

There is a longer definition. Here is the list of major crimes in Ireland for the 2010s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_crimes_in_Ireland#2010s

"Polish immigrant Lukasz Rzeszutko was attacked and violently beaten by three youths outside of his workplace while on his way to work. He received traumatic head injuries and died two days later in hospital. Martin Morgan, who “danced” on the victim's head, is convicted of murder, while his cousins Edward Byrne and Stephen Byrne are sentenced for manslaughter. Morgan is the younger brother Paul Manley's killer Mark Morgan."

"A gang of youths lures 19 year-old David Byrne to a fake meeting using text messages pretending to be a girl. The gang then chases Byrne into a nearby apartment complex, when he is soon cornered in a dead end and stabbed nine times in the face and back by 17 year-old Marcus Kirwan."

"Nigerian teenager Toyosi ****tabey, age 15, was fatally stabbed during an altercation with brothers Paul and Michael Barry. On the morning of the murder trial, Paul Barry, who had inflicted the wound which killed ****tabey, was found dead, and Michael Barry was later acquitted. The case invoked widespread outcry relating to racism in Ireland."


Are the US the only ones with a problem?

looksee

Maybe if you go and read about 100+ years of lynching in the US (the Wikipedia page does a good summary) and the numerous failed attempts to legislate against it, you might be less inclined towards the whataboutery.

My main point is not even about the necessity to stop any lynching, it is about a country that can be aware of it and even now actively refuse to legislate against it, even as a gesture to decency and regret.

blanch152

looksee wrote: »

Maybe if you go and read about 100+ years of lynching in the US (the Wikipedia page does a good summary) and the numerous failed attempts to legislate against it, you might be less inclined towards the whataboutery.

My main point is not even about the necessity to stop any lynching, it is about a country that can be aware of it and even now actively refuse to legislate against it, even as a gesture to decency and regret.

I don't disagree with a law against lynching. I just think we should get our own house in order first, before criticising any other country.

We had a cheek criticising Saudi Arabia on women's rights when we wouldn't let our own women have an abortion here, and had a history of court cases trying to force them not to travel abroad.

Peregrinus

blanch152 wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching

"Lynching is a premeditated extrajudicial killing by a group."

There is a longer definition. Here is the list of major crimes in Ireland for the 2010s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_crimes_in_Ireland#2010s

"Polish immigrant Lukasz Rzeszutko was attacked and violently beaten by three youths outside of his workplace while on his way to work. He received traumatic head injuries and died two days later in hospital. Martin Morgan, who “danced” on the victim's head, is convicted of murder, while his cousins Edward Byrne and Stephen Byrne are sentenced for manslaughter. Morgan is the younger brother Paul Manley's killer Mark Morgan."

"A gang of youths lures 19 year-old David Byrne to a fake meeting using text messages pretending to be a girl. The gang then chases Byrne into a nearby apartment complex, when he is soon cornered in a dead end and stabbed nine times in the face and back by 17 year-old Marcus Kirwan."

"Nigerian teenager Toyosi ****tabey, age 15, was fatally stabbed during an altercation with brothers Paul and Michael Barry. On the morning of the murder trial, Paul Barry, who had inflicted the wound which killed ****tabey, was found dead, and Michael Barry was later acquitted. The case invoked widespread outcry relating to racism in Ireland."


Are the US the only ones with a problem?

All those acts are already illegal under Irish law. They attract a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. Do you want a law to make them illegal squared, attracting a sentence of life squared?

The US legislation described in the newspaper report linked in the OP (which you don't seem to have read) would make lynch killings a federal crime in the US, which they currently aren't- lynching is only criminalised at state level. That's quite obvious addressing an issued which we don't have, and can never have, in Ireland.

EdgeCase

Some fine whataboutery further up the thread there.

The problem in the United States is that there has been a historical legal shelter for 'lynchers'. In an Irish context you would simply be prosecuted for murder or under various laws for either being an accessory to murder or conspiring to kill someone or making threats to kill someone. There are also laws against raising militias, carrying or using offensive weapons and all sorts of things here.

A person who did something like that would be facing the most serious charges available to the DPP.

The situation in the US is frankly an absolutely disgrace and shouldn't exist in a modern democracy as it's basically carte blanche for extrajudicial murder and comes down to an inability to move on from the wild-west in certain parts of the country. I know it's covered off in state law in most places, but it's insanity that this can't be legislated for at a federal level.

The fact that this is even a debate in 2019 is shocking. I mean it's like a discussion you'd expect in some developing world place that has no concept of human rights or rule of law.

In a civilised, 21st century society something like this shouldn't even be a point of discussion. It's reasonable to assume you can go around without risk of being murdered by an angry mob.

I honestly don't know how right thinking Americans, and to be fair: that is most Americans, allow the kind of crazy to be part of mainstream political debate. It's an utter embarrassment and I really don't think it's reflective of broader US society. The tail wags the dog in the US political system and that tail always wags to the very far right.

The anti LGBT stuff is also just mind boggling. Can you imagine being a gay person in a country that has legislators who go on like that? It must be frightening. It's all fine and well if you're in somewhere openminded on the coasts, but if you're some gay person in the middle of redneck America, it must genuinely feel like your country hates you. Even living in more progressive parts of the states, you've got the constant risk of homophobic legislation at federal level severely restricting your rights. Yes, you can just turn a blind eye to it and pretend that it's not relevant to you and live your life in NY or MA or CA or wherever, but that's the kind of crazy that is going on at federal legislative level.

We really do live in quite a progressive bubble here where you can assume at Irish and European levels that rights are progressing forwards or at least being firmly upheld.

donaghs

EdgeCase wrote: »

Some fine whataboutery further up the thread there.

The problem in the United States is that there has been a historical legal shelter for 'lynchers'. In an Irish context you would simply be prosecuted for murder or under various laws for either being an accessory to murder or conspiring to kill someone or making threats to kill someone. There are also laws against raising militias, carrying or using offensive weapons and all sorts of things here.

A person who did something like that would be facing the most serious charges available to the DPP.

The situation in the US is frankly an absolutely disgrace and shouldn't exist in a modern democracy as it's basically carte blanche for extrajudicial murder and comes down to an inability to move on from the wild-west in certain parts of the country. I know it's covered off in state law in most places, but it's insanity that this can't be legislated for at a federal level.

The fact that this is even a debate in 2019 is shocking. I mean it's like a discussion you'd expect in some developing world place that has no concept of human rights or rule of law.

In a civilised, 21st century society something like this shouldn't even be a point of discussion. It's reasonable to assume you can go around without risk of being murdered by an angry mob.

Forgive my ignorance, but how is lynching not already illegal in US States?
A mob of people killing someone without a trial etc?

I haven't seen evidence of it being legal, rather an unwillingness to prosecute people for the crime of murder/manslaughter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States

looksee

donaghs wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance, but how is lynching not already illegal in US States?
A mob of people killing someone without a trial etc?

I haven't seen evidence of it being legal, rather an unwillingness to prosecute people for the crime of murder/manslaughter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States

Your ignorance could be remedied by reading the wiki article you quoted. It is illegal at state level, in some states, but has been firmly rejected at Federal level by the unbalanced power of individual states that preferred to allow lynch mobs to operate.

In fact, more recently people have been charged with murder or manslaughter for lynching, that is not really the issue. In a country where this is has been an issue, and to a limited extent, continues to be, the passing of a bill to finally make it clearly unacceptable should not even be worthy of debate.

But now a further attempt to make lynching illegal is being made, and a bunch of so-called Christians - or at any rate, Evangelicals - are trying to remove LGBT from the list of 'reasons you can't lynch someone'. Effectively what they are suggesting is that mob rule should be allowed in the case of LGBT.

It is almost impossible to imagine a first world country even hinting that mob rule should permissible in any circumstances, but then, in a country where an individual's right to own a gun overrules the right of children to attend school in a non-threatening environment, then nothing is surprising.

Brian?

looksee wrote: »

Your ignorance could be remedied by reading the wiki article you quoted. It is illegal at state level, in some states, but has been firmly rejected at Federal level by the unbalanced power of individual states that preferred to allow lynch mobs to operate.

In fact, more recently people have been charged with murder or manslaughter for lynching, that is not really the issue. In a country where this is has been an issue, and to a limited extent, continues to be, the passing of a bill to finally make it clearly unacceptable should not even be worthy of debate.

But now a further attempt to make lynching illegal is being made, and a bunch of so-called Christians - or at any rate, Evangelicals - are trying to remove LGBT from the list of 'reasons you can't lynch someone'. Effectively what they are suggesting is that mob rule should be allowed in the case of LGBT.

It is almost impossible to imagine a first world country even hinting that mob rule should permissible in any circumstances, but then, in a country where an individual's right to own a gun overrules the right of children to attend school in a non-threatening environment, then nothing is surprising.

I read an article recently about a young black man who was convicted of murder when he was 15, tried as an adult, because he stole a car which someone else took and used to commit murder. At no stage did the prosecution attempt to prove that he was actually involved in the murde beyond initially stealing the car. He was sitting in his house when the murder happened, which everyone accepted as true.

This is what state laws get you. The ability to target certain demographics. It’s completely dysfunctional.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Troll banned

joe40

The fact that America still carries out the Death penalty quite regularly, despite all other western democracies having long abandoned the idea shows just how far behind America is in many respects.

This is not an attempt to insult all Americans just that some aspects of American culture has not developed or changed in the same way as other western countries.

Every country has uncomfortable histories, Lynching is an extremely dark aspect of American history. But where other countries have faced up to their murky past and tried to move on you get the feeling this is not happening in America, or at least for a large number of Americans

wench

Brian? wrote: »

I read an article recently about a young black man who was convicted of murder when he was 15, tried as an adult, because he stole a car which someone else took and used to commit murder. At no stage did the prosecution attempt to prove that he was actually involved in the murde beyond initially stealing the car. He was sitting in his house when the murder happened, which everyone accepted as true.

This is what state laws get you. The ability to target certain demographics. It’s completely dysfunctional.

Or this one from Alabama where a cop did the killing, but the black kid still goes down
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/15/alabama-accomplice-law-lakeith-smith

donaghs

looksee wrote: »

Your ignorance could be remedied by reading the wiki article you quoted. It is illegal at state level, in some states, but has been firmly rejected at Federal level by the unbalanced power of individual states that preferred to allow lynch mobs to operate.

In fact, more recently people have been charged with murder or manslaughter for lynching, that is not really the issue. In a country where this is has been an issue, and to a limited extent, continues to be, the passing of a bill to finally make it clearly unacceptable should not even be worthy of debate.

I think you are missing the point though. Isn't killing someone without any cause or due process already illegal in all the states?

I'm not arguing against a specific lynching law, as I think it could have saved lives, particularly in the past. Any change to a law should be subject to scrutiny and debate, no matter how worthy. If even to ensure the wording of the legislation does what it is supposed to.

AllForIt

joe40 wrote: »

Every country has uncomfortable histories, Lynching is an extremely dark aspect of American history. But where other countries have faced up to their murky past and tried to move on you get the feeling this is not happening in America, or at least for a large number of Americans

Lynching is still a thing in Africa, in 2nd world and 3rd world states, to this day. They don't get reported in general media because of the gruesome isolated nature of them.

To suggest that America has a particular problem with lynching is just daft. The US have gotten over their tribal vicious past way faster than any other problematic dysfunctional country that sill exists today.

jhenno78

Peregrinus wrote: »

All those acts are already illegal under Irish law. They attract a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. Do you want a law to make them illegal squared, attracting a sentence of life squared?

I'm no expert...but wouldn't one life sentence squared still be one life sentence?

Victor

jhenno78 wrote: »

I'm no expert...but wouldn't one life sentence squared still be one life sentence?

With parole, etc., someone sentenced to life will often be released after a period of time. In Ireland, I think this averages about 12 years (they still have to follow rules after this), although there are some people convicted of murder who are still in prison after 30 years.

If someone is convicted of murder and lynching, then their parole options will be much more limited.

Manic Moran

There is currently a case in the Supreme Court awaiting decision which could make this whole thing a bit irrelevant.

There is the doctrine of 'dual sovereignty', which basically says that the double-jeopardy prohibition (i.e. you cannot be tried twice for the same thing) does not apply when two different organisations are doing the trying. i.e. State and Federal. Under the current system, which recognizes the supremacy of dual sovereignty, if you aren't nailed by the State for whatever reason, the Feds can have a crack at you. This is why, for example, in the civil rights era, folks aquitted of murder of blacks would still find themselves hauled up in federal court on 'deprivation of civil liberties' charges, or whatever the appropriate federal crime was for the same action. It's also why US immigration forms have such ridiculously stupid questions on them. If you say no to "Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States?", and blow up a building, the Feds can still get you for lying on a form even if the State doesn't do you for murder or whatever.

Indications from oral argument in December have Gorsuch and Ginsburg on one side, against Kagan and Kavanaugh on the other. (Contrary to common belief, SCOTUS does not routinely vote 'party ideological' lines.) Watchers believe it most likely that the court will follow past precedent and uphold the dual sovereignty exception, but if it does not, then this lynching law may prove merely symbolic.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

With parole, etc., someone sentenced to life will often be released after a period of time. In Ireland, I think this averages about 12 years (they still have to follow rules after this), although there are some people convicted of murder who are still in prison after 30 years.

If someone is convicted of murder and lynching, then their parole options will be much more limited.

Couple of misconceptions here.

First, your average life sentence involves much, much longer than 12 years in custody. Last year, the average time served by life prisoners who were released was 22 years. This varies from year to year, depending on who gets released each year. (The numbers are small enough that each individual release shifts the average signficantly.) But the usual range is 18 to 23 years as average time served by lifers granted full temporary release each year.

But even that skews the figures a bit, because it only looks at lifers who get released, not lifers who remain in custody. For obvious reasons, the lifers who remain in custody tend to serve longer sentences than the lifers who get released on licence.

Secondly, parole options for lifers don't depend on what the number of crimes they have been convicted of. There are a few lifers who are not eligible for parole at all - notably those who murder guards or prison officers on duty, or who murder politicians or diplomats for political reasons. The rules applying to all other lifers are the same:

(a) No possibility of remission of sentence for good behaviour, etc

(b) But "temporary release" is possible. Temporary release starts off being provisional and for a limited time only, but can be elevated to "full temporary release" - effectively indefinite - subject to continued compliance with behavioural rules.

Prisoners sentenced to 14 years or more are eligible for consideration for temporary release after 7 years, but actually getting it at that point would be rare and, unless you're near death or something similar, unheard-of for a lifer. As noted, lifers are likely to do a further 10 years or more before there is a reasonable prospect of temporary release. When you're being considered, the number of your crimes is not relevant; what matters is the nature of your crimes. So whether you're serving a life sentence for murder, or a life sentence for murder and a concurrent life sentence for lynching, the actual circumstances of your crime would be the same, and they'd have the same bearing on a temporary release decision (as well as all the other relevant considerations - what your behaviour and mental state is, whether you're a threat to the community, your attitude to and efforts towards rehabilitation, engagement with therapeutic services, what awaits you outside in terms of family and social support, etc, etc.)

The point of the US Bill is to give the federal government a basis for mounting prosecutions of lynching murders where they consider the efforts of the state government to be inadequate. That, obviously, has no parallel in Ireland, where there is no federal/state distinction. I'm not seeing any reason why we would need a separate lynching offence in Ireland. For the reasons given, it wouldn't affect early release opportunities.

(And, if you wanted to limit early release opportunties, you wouldn't need a separate offence of lynching; just a rule that puts murders committed in circumstances which amount to lynching in the same category as murders of guards, prison officers, politicians, etc).

jhenno78

Victor wrote: »

With parole, etc., someone sentenced to life will often be released after a period of time. In Ireland, I think this averages about 12 years (they still have to follow rules after this), although there are some people convicted of murder who are still in prison after 30 years.

If someone is convicted of murder and lynching, then their parole options will be much more limited.

*whoosh*

FreudianSlippers

joe40 wrote: »

The fact that America still carries out the Death penalty quite regularly, despite all other western democracies having long abandoned the idea shows just how far behind America is in many respects.

This is not an attempt to insult all Americans just that some aspects of American culture has not developed or changed in the same way as other western countries.

Every country has uncomfortable histories, Lynching is an extremely dark aspect of American history. But where other countries have faced up to their murky past and tried to move on you get the feeling this is not happening in America, or at least for a large number of Americans

Death penalty is illegal in 20 States and Washington DC, so it's hardly an issue with "America".

joe40

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

The fact that America still carries out the Death penalty quite regularly, despite all other western democracies having long abandoned the idea shows just how far behind America is in many respects.

This is not an attempt to insult all Americans just that some aspects of American culture has not developed or changed in the same way as other western countries.

Every country has uncomfortable histories, Lynching is an extremely dark aspect of American history. But where other countries have faced up to their murky past and tried to move on you get the feeling this is not happening in America, or at least for a large number of Americans

Death penalty is illegal in 20 States and Washington DC, so it's hardly an issue with "America".

The federal government can still carry out executions, so it still is an issue with "America"

Manic Moran

I would submit there is quite a difference between a government execution (whether you approve of it or not) and an extrajudicial killing. There's a reason the term 'lynch mob' has become quite derogatory.

Peregrinus

Manic Moran wrote: »

I would submit there is quite a difference between a government execution (whether you approve of it or not) and an extrajudicial killing. There's a reason the term 'lynch mob' has become quite derogatory.

There is a difference, obviously. A huge difference. If nothing else, this is shown by the fact that lots of western countries used to have quite regular judicial executions, but still didn't have lynchings. So it can't really be claimed that one is tied inexorably and inevitably to the other.

But . .

It's undeniably the case that judicial killings raise significant moral questions that aren't satisfactorily addressed by pointing out that at least they are not lynchings.

And it's also undeniably the case that the US is, um, an outlier in the Western world both in having a significant problem with lynchings and in having regular recourse to judicial executions. It's reasonable to ask whether both of these phenomena might be connected; whether they might reflect some distinctively American cultural attitudes towards the use of violence, for example.

Manic Moran

the US is, um, an outlier in the Western world both in having a significant problem with lynchings

We've had... what... two lynchings in the past 50 years in the US? (1981 and 1998, from a quick search). In both cases the guilty were brought to trial. I don't know if that's what you would consider a 'significant problem'.

Peregrinus

Manic Moran wrote: »

We've had... what... two lynchings in the past 50 years in the US? (1981 and 1998, from a quick search). In both cases the guilty were brought to trial. I don't know if that's what you would consider a 'significant problem'.

It depends on your definition of "lynching", obviously, which I suspect is at the heart of the dispute over the current proposal for a federal lynching law (which, I admit, is not something I have paid a great deal of attention to). The stereotype called to mind by the word "lynching" is of racially-fuelled lynchings, and I think that's where the "2 in the past 50 years" figure comes from. But if a gropup attacks and kills someone because they are perceived to be gay, or transgender, or a Muslim, or a member of some other out-of-favour group, is that a lynching? If it is, then I think the figure for the past 50 years is probably a bit more than 2.

But, regardless, I'd readily agree that the US's issue with lynching is to a large extent a historical issue, but that doesn't mean that it's unimportant, or that an anti-lynching law has no current relevance. When (racial) lynching was very much a live issue, the US Congress repeatedly failed to make it a federal crime, largely because of systematic obstruction by southern Democratic senators. Passing such a law now, therefore, may be significant as a token of a changed political resolve and changed attitude in the US political establishment. (And voting down such a law would certainly be significant, I think you'd agree.)

pleas advice

Wasn't there a lynching of a gay man in Dublin back in the 80s, and the lads that killed him were convicted of manslaughter but given suspended sentences,

yoke

pleas advice wrote: »

Wasn't there a lynching of a gay man in Dublin back in the 80s, and the lads that killed him were convicted of manslaughter but given suspended sentences,

I think it’s a problem everywhere, Ireland is just a smaller country than America so it’s more well hidden here, fewer or no organized groups doing lynchings at least

Peregrinus

pleas advice wrote: »

Wasn't there a lynching of a gay man in Dublin back in the 80s, and the lads that killed him were convicted of manslaughter but given suspended sentences,

Declan Flynn.

L1011

One of whom was later convicted of rape. Presume it was before the era of the DPP appealing weak sentences?

Peregrinus

L1011 wrote: »

One of whom was later convicted of rape. Presume it was before the era of the DPP appealing weak sentences?

Yes, about ten years before that.

(It shold be pointed out that the decision to accept pleas of guilty to manslaughter, rather than to prosecute for murder, was the DPP's. But it's very unlikely that he would have expected a suspended sentence.)

I'm old enough to remember the case when it happened. The sentence was hugely controversial and from memory it led to one of the first, if not the actual first, gay rights march in Ireland. Certainly the first one that had participation from a wide range of organisations that weren't themselves gay rights organisations.

eagnaee

Peregrinus wrote: »

Countries generally only legislatate against crimes, the commission of which is a real-world problem for them. The US has lynchings; Ireland does not.

Everywhere has lynching. The US's racist lynching ended a long time ago.