Blog

Why Did Four Congressmen Vote Against an Anti-Lynching Act?

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | Feb 28, 2020 | 0 Comments

Congress recently passed a bill that made it a federal crime to lynch someone. The bill, which was largely symbolic given the fact that existing law already covered lynching, passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 410 to 4.

The vote caused outrage, particularly among liberals, for the fact that it was not unanimous.

That outrage is misplaced. Here's why.

The Emmett Till Antilynching Act is Empty

The bill, HR 35, was named the Emmett Till Antilynching Act after the victim of a heinous offense in 1955 Mississippi. It amends 18 U.S.C. § 249, a federal hate crimes law, by adding a provision that explicitly covers lynching. The Act forbids “Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully, acting as part of any collection of people, assembled for the purpose and with the intention of committing an act of violence upon any person, causes death to any person.”

Most of this kind of conduct, though, was already covered and outlawed by 18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(1), which forbids “willfully caus[ing] bodily injury to any person… because of the[ir] actual or perceived race.”

Why the Four Representatives Voted Against HR 35

Media coverage of what is being called a “historic vote” has been quick to criticize the four members of Congress – all of them Republican – for not signing the bill. However, the media stops short of explaining why they voted against it.

Two Representatives Thought HR 35 Infringes on States' Rights

Two of the four, Ted Yoho (R-Fla) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky), didn't like how it extended the reach of federal law enforcement. According to them, hate crimes should be handled at the state level under the concept of the separation of powers.

Justin Amash: Disturbing Punishments for Conspiracy Offenses

Justin Amash (I-Mich), the libertarian representative who changed from the Republican Party a few years ago, voted against HR 35 because of what he saw as a disturbing expansion of conspiracy crimes in the bill.

One of the key (and only) differences between the current hate crimes law, 18 U.S.C. § 249, and the amendments offered by HR 35 were who could face prosecution. Under existing law, only those who willfully caused bodily injury could be prosecuted for a hate crime. Under the Emmett Till Act, anyone “acting as part of any collection of people” could be prosecuted.

Even if these bystanders or co-conspirators were not actively participating, they could still face a life sentence in jail or even the death penalty. That disturbed Rep. Amash enough to vote against the bill.

Louie Gohmert: Penalties Aren't Tough Enough

On the other side was Louie Gohmert (R-Tex). He voted against HR 35 because he didn't like how the penalties for “anyone who assembles with the intention of lynching” had been dropped over months of debate in the House. He had liked an earlier version that had included a provision that carried higher penalties for these conspirators.

Criminal Defense Lawyer Joseph D. Lento

Joseph D. Lento is a criminal defense lawyer in Philadelphia. Contact him online or call his law office at (215) 535-5353 for legal representation.

About the Author

Joseph D. Lento

"I pride myself on having heart and driving hard to get results!" Joseph D. Lento has more than a decade of experience fighting for the futures of his clients in criminal courtrooms in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, as well as New Jersey. He does not settle for the easiest outcome, and instead prioritizes his clients' needs and well-being.

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact Us Today!

footer-2.jpg

Attorney Joseph D. Lento has more than a decade of experience successfully resolving clients' criminal charges in Philadelphia and the Pennsylvania counties. If you are having any uncertainties about what the future may hold for you or a loved one, contact the Lento Law Firm today! Criminal defense attorney Joseph D. Lento will go above and beyond the needs of any client, and will fight until the final bell rings.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations – the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website.  In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Berks, Lancaster, Lehigh, and Northampton County.  In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County,  In New York, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New York's 62 counties.  Outside of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance may not constitute legal advice or the practice of law.  The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, New York, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship.  The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.

Menu