US passes law against lynching; evangelicals campaign against it

[therealstegblob]

It's murder, why do you need a new law.

You can get the death penalty for lynching someone, or shooting someone, or running over someone in your car.

I really don't know why everyone keeps asking this question, but here's the answer:

Yes, lynching was already 'illegal' because it's murder. But this law's purpose is to make lynching recognized as an act in of itself and, more than that, specifically an act of hate. People who sit there saying WHY DO IT MATTER JUST PUNISH EM FOR MURDER WHY RECOGNIZE IT MORE THAN THAT are just stunted in their ability to understand why it's important to fully realize something for every facet of what it is. Kind of like the same people who don't understand why we still put obviously guilty people on trial.

- - - Updated - - -

Continuing to clog up the law books with unneeded law creates a situation for loopholes and mistakes. But I guess this is what keeps lawyers in business. The new latin of the modern world is the huge codified law books of the land written in a language of legalise that the average citizen can't understand.

Lolno.

Murder of all kinds is still murder and still against the law. There aren't specific forms of murder you can get away with "because there isn't a law saying that form of murder is against the law". Making lynching against the law is a specific instance of recognizing lynching as being a hate crime, and a specific type of murder. The crime is elevated when you run up to a black guy and yell "DIE FILTHY BLACK SCUM" and shoot him to death as opposed to had you just silently shot him. Same case with this.

Now quit it already, your """""argument""""" is really making you look embarassing.

[Themerlin]

Why is it when I think of the worst of America, I think of its evangelical past no matter what flavor of Religion was current.

A perverted form of free market prophets trying to control as much as they could in a new land.

No difference between a Muslim extremist, and a devout Evangelical in the US right now, both are as unhinged.


Time to get rid of their Tax Free benefits, lets see if their faith can sustain their pockets, less swindling the unfortunate and overly gullible.

Edit - Seeing all these Evangelical forces from the US coming into Haiti, evangelizing the population in return for food, clothes, etc. It sickened me. Unlike us, who brought 100k$ worth of medicine, equipment and a willingness to help the communities, their help was only guided towards their evangelical sect in remote areas North of Port de Prince. They brought T-Shirts....and the word of God.

I truly hated being in their vicinity.

Evangelicals scare me more than terrorists, because their faith is so twisted by American dichotomous ideals that they are literally capable of anything (as is shown by them supporting the Pussy Grabber in Chief, and being the reason he was voted in).

Muslims = God is Great

Evangelicals = Jesus is Great
= Israel is Great
= Guns are Great
= Wealth is great


It often makes me wonder what these neo-evangelicals in the US actually worship.

[The Stormbringer]

I'm never going to understand why people have such a problem who other people are sexually attracted to.

If it is between two consenting adults, its NONYA BUSINESS. Get over it.

It's partially people who are raised to think it's wrong/peer pressured into acting against it to defend their image, partially people who are in denial about their own feelings and desires, and partially people who want a scapegoat that they can hate and blame for their problems.

It's all dumb and genuinely saddening.

[Endus]

I'm honestly struggling to find a definition or commonly held understanding of Mens Rea that applies to the concept of differentiating a crime based on the "why" of who you chose to harm. Only that you acted with the intent to harm and knew that the harm was "wrong" versus acting negligently or recklessly.

Could you provide a legal reference that uses Mens Rea as such?

Jesus Christ.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mens+rea
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea
https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/mens-rea/

"Mens rea" is the recognition that motive and intent and mindset matter, to a crime, not just the action that occurred. Specific intent, in particular, is a component that is particularly relevant to why hate crimes are punished more harshly than others.

Pointing to the fact that the physical action is the same between a hate crime and a "normal" assault does not make a point; that is focusing exclusively on actus reus, and ignoring mens rea completely.

[triplesdsu]

Really not going to apologize for thinking violent offenders should be facing prison time, and non-violent personal-use drug offenders shouldn't, no matter how you try and twist that.



Mens rea is not "mental state". This is a basic legal concept, and not one unique to American law.

99.5 percent of drug offenders in federal prison are there for trafficking and nearly 1/4 of them used a weapon in their most reason offense (violent). The whole personal use offenders in prison is a myth. Especially at times goes on. Again, this isnt the 1960s. And if you think drug dealers are non-violent, i have some ocean front property in idaho to sell you.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dofp12.pdf

Edit: Not saying you need to apologize. I just find it ironic that the same group that one minute bitches we have to many people locked up in the US then turns around and says we need to lock MORE people up. Just be consistent. CA is trying to do the very anti-"mass incarceration" thing you gusy claim you want but dont seem to realize what that looks like. It looks like probation for assaulting people. Im good with sending these jackasses to prison but i dont have a problem with people being locked up. At least im consistent in that regard.
'
- - - Updated - - -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.bbb1ed0141da

Just one of many, like Trump and Roy Moore.

But do tell me of even a single Democrat pedophile still holding office without it being condemned and ousted by the rest of the party.


Yeah, this same tired argument of "I am X or have X friends, so I can't be bigoted to X".

If this argument was ever valid at any point in history, the Holocaust would never have been classified as antisemitic, by virtue of having Jewish Nazis in the ruling party.

- - - Updated - - -



It's quite hilarious how you aren't even factually consistent in your replies. I didn't even say punch, but somehow, you insist I defend an argument you made for me.

seriously? you link one case off the post and think you know what you're talking about? Ive forgotten more about sex crimes against children then you ever knew. Back to your bridge, im done with you.

[Ozyorkbourne]

It makes lynching a federal crime, while murder is (normally, there are a lot of exceptions) a state crime.

Why this is important is that certain states historically refused to prosecute lynchings, and if the state doesn't feel like it, they don't have to. Now, the state will most likely have the first opportunity to prosecute a lynching under state murder laws, but if they're a bunch of racist twats and decide they don't want to, the federal government will have the chance to step in and say that they'll prosecute the crime instead.

Damn, I thought this was just being changed as a modernization of law. In the UK there are still some laws about shooting a Welshman in a certain town/city centre or on a hill from a certain distance away. It's obviously illegal, but the archaic law was never repealed either. Frankly I hope we don't repeal laws like that, which are so integral to history since modern law obviously supersedes them.

[PosPosPos]

99.5 percent of drug offenders in federal prison are there for trafficking and nearly 1/4 of them used a weapon in their most reason offense (violent). The whole personal use offenders in prison is a myth. Especially at times goes on. Again, this isnt the 1960s. And if you think drug dealers are non-violent, i have some ocean front property in idaho to sell you.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dofp12.pdf

https://www.newsherald.com/news/2018...-drug-evidence

Hmm....

Also, cops putting up "resisting arrest" willy-nilly doesn't violent crimes make.

seriously? you link one case off the post and think you know what you're talking about? Ive forgotten more about sex crimes against children then you ever knew. Back to your bridge, im done with you.

Although you were the one who made the first assertion, I am feeling generous so:
https://www.scribd.com/document/2274...Pedophile-List

Oh dear, the list on democrats doesn't even reach 5% of this.

[Draco-Onis]

Damn, I thought this was just being changed as a modernization of law. In the UK there are still some laws about shooting a Welshman in a certain town/city centre or on a hill from a certain distance away. It's obviously illegal, but the archaic law was never repealed either. Frankly I hope we don't repeal laws like that, which are so integral to history since modern law obviously supersedes them.

There are things called books and the internet that allow you to keep such history, people don't think about laws like that until some weird case happens and people use it to get away with something awful. If it is obsolete get rid of it no logical reason to keep them active.

[triplesdsu]

You;re giving me a headache with this nonsense.

A) A county deputy isn't a federal officer so irrelevant to my comments about FEDERAL prison. Not that you would know the difference.
B) You do realize the VAST majority of sex offenders dont run or make public office right? I'm pretty sure i investigated more people individually then you have on this list. So its hardly a relevant representation of reality.

But if youre saying politicians in general are scum, then for the post part that is one thing we can agree on. They say a broken clock is right twice.

[PosPosPos]

You;re giving me a headache with this nonsense.

A) A county deputy isn't a federal officer so irrelevant to my comments about FEDERAL prison. Not that you would know the difference.
B) You do realize the VAST majority of sex offenders dont run or make public office right? I'm pretty sure i investigated more people individually then you have on this list. So its hardly a relevant representation of reality.

But if youre saying politicians in general are scum, then for the post part that is one thing we can agree on. They say a broken clock is right twice.

And yet, only Republicans like you defend their sexual predators. Says a lot.

Still waiting on your evidence.

[Rozz]

So wait... this is a law that passed the U.S. Senate, which is controlled by Republicans (whom Evangelicals throw their lot in with), and yet Evangelicals are rallying against it? WTF.

To be fair the Republican party has been an incoherent mess for years. Those guys don't like each other. Pretty sure having them all meet together in one room is one hell of an awkward dinner party.

[Endus]

99.5 percent of drug offenders in federal prison are there for trafficking and nearly 1/4 of them used a weapon in their most reason offense (violent). The whole personal use offenders in prison is a myth. Especially at times goes on. Again, this isnt the 1960s. And if you think drug dealers are non-violent, i have some ocean front property in idaho to sell you.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dofp12.pdf

You realize that link is only talking about federal prisons, right? Drug possession wouldn't get tried federally; it's almost all trafficking because trafficking crosses state lines and that cranks it up to a federal case.

[Themerlin]

Why is it that when Endus is near, the local populace breathes a sigh of relief?

Anung Un Rama

[Vantheus]

No they are upset because they are a protected Group which they should not be, sexual preference should never be protected because no one should know anyway, you can't hide your race but you can't hide who you sleep with

[PosPosPos]

You realize that link is only talking about federal prisons, right? Drug possession wouldn't get tried federally; it's almost all trafficking because trafficking crosses state lines and that cranks it up to a federal case.

And they are "violent" because of "resisting arrest" and "gun possession" slapped on to them, rather than actually being violent in most cases.

Curious how trumped up charges work, they inflate crime statistics and feed right into people's alarmism.

- - - Updated - - -

Even in your links there's nothing different from what I already said in the previous post: That Mens Rea addresses intent to cause harm or knowledge that harm could occur, but nothing about "Causing that harm because you don't like <demographic> specifically."

How do you not have intent to cause harm if you somehow consciously target someone with violence knowing they are x demographic, and because they are x demographic.

Yeah, people are assholes for being exasperated you fail at elementary school level reading comprehension.

Furthers my point about you seeing things that are not there, and not seeing things which are there.

[Vantheus]

It makes lynching a federal crime, while murder is (normally, there are a lot of exceptions) a state crime.

Why this is important is that certain states historically refused to prosecute lynchings, and if the state doesn't feel like it, they don't have to. Now, the state will most likely have the first opportunity to prosecute a lynching under state murder laws, but if they're a bunch of racist twats and decide they don't want to, the federal government will have the chance to step in and say that they'll prosecute the crime instead.

Racist? Race has absolutely nothing to do with lynching, historically worldwide white people have been lynched 10-1 more than any other group, race has absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong, if it's wrong for one race it's wrong for all races

[BananaHandsB]

It's murder, why do you need a new law.

A lawyer could explain this better, but within the category of murder, there are different degrees. This promotes lynching to a federal hate crime which can bring with it higher consequences, like the death penalty. Simply promoting it to a federal crime adds all sorts of different nuisances to the crime as well, such as who prosecutes it, how it is handled in the court system, which courts are used, etc and no longer makes it purely a state prosecuted crime.

[PACOX]

I would have thought Lynching was already illegal. As others point out, it's Murder... so one would think it's covered there. But hey, if it's covered now... good. As for people campaigning against it, I question their mental state.

Its not exactly illegal and not exactly considered murder - that's why there is a need for definition.

What lynching essentially is trial and punishment outside of the court of law. So say a man is accused of raping a woman, the locals get to together to prosecute him. They find him guilty and carry out the sentence.

In the past one could use some bullshit like "well the town collectively got together and deemed the person guilty" the same way a jury can technically decide a case whichever way they want. The other argument was 'well you can't go after all of them'.

Lynching being viewed as straight up murder is fairly new and only in retrospect. Lynching a black man was totally fine as long as their was a 'trial'. A gay couple could get beat out of town if the locals didn't want them there. Lynch mobs could still assemble.

A legal definition is better than leaving it ambiguous and hoping people view nonsense as murder before it actually happens (again).

[Calfredd]

No they are upset because they are a protected Group which they should not be, sexual preference should never be protected because no one should know anyway, you can't hide your race but you can't hide who you sleep with

So then they should be protected?

[PosPosPos]

Racist? Race has absolutely nothing to do with lynching, historically worldwide white people have been lynched 10-1 more than any other group, race has absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong, if it's wrong for one race it's wrong for all races

-citation needed-

Based on the US, people of color get lynched much more than whites.