Finally Outlawing Lynching and the Inevitable Redefining of Lynching
The quagmire we enter with the new legislation regarding lynching is centered on the ever changing definitions of the terms we use commonly and the expanding culpability assuming intent.
While the murder of Ahmaud Arbery has been called a lynching (and there is substantial cause for that label) the last time a man was lynched and his killers convicted for it in the United States it was 2011.
A group of young white men and women were partying in the small town of Puckett, They decided to go buy more beer in a location where stores were open later at night. Deryl Dedmon, an 18-year-old white man led the group in planning to attack blacks in Jackson. They talked about collecting bottles to throw at people. Dedmon said to friends, "Let's go fuck with some n****rs." The group split up between Dedmon's green 1998 Ford F-250 truck and a white Jeep Cherokee. They each drove to a predominantly black area.
The two vehicles pulled off the freeway and into a motel parking lot. The group said they believed that James Craig Anderson was trying to steal a vehicle because they saw him trying to break into one. The vehicle was Anderson's own; he had lost his keys. The group repeatedly beat Anderson and robbed him, the district attorney said, citing reports from witnesses. Video from a motel security camera shows the perpetrators entering and leaving the picture frame, but did not capture the beating. One witness reported that one of the perpetrators yelled, "white power", when returning to his truck after the beating.
Dedmon drove his pickup truck over Anderson, who was staggering along the edge of the lot. This attack was captured on video. Dedmon caused fatal injuries, and Anderson died a few days later.
They were caught and prosecuted for a hate crime. Three of the young men were sentenced to a collective seventy-five years in prison.
Not much different from our common understanding of lynching. Obvious racial targeting without a lot of wiggle-room to defend. These dudes were out-and-out, unambiguous bigots. There was no question of intent or impact and the intent was stated pretty clearly.
More than 4,000 people, mostly African Americans, were reported lynched in the United States from 1882 to 1968, in all but a handful of states. Ninety-nine percent of perpetrators escaped state or local punishment, according to Rush’s office.
Monday’s 422-to-3 vote comes after lawmakers failed to pass anti-lynching bills nearly 200 times. The three “no” votes were cast by Republican Reps. Andrew S. Clyde (Ga.), Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Chip Roy (Tex.).
Supporters of the legislation called its passage long overdue.
Since 1965 there have been ten recorded lynchings including the murder of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia. For all the historical well-meaning of an anti-lynching law, the symbolism unassailable, the passing of this law is just a bit like outlawing child labor or shotgun weddings. Not that these things don’t happen but they are already illegal and aren’t as prevalent as they were 100 years ago.
There is, however, some dicier territory this legislation, one hundred years too late, enters society and the consequences are at least worth noting.
The common parlance of social justice is that intent does not matter, only impact does. Except for when the intent can elevate the punishment and then it is of the utmost gravity. A Netflix executive can use the n-word with the intent of defining why certain words should not be used on the platform and the impact of that is minimal. Add the false intent of white supremacy upon the utterance and it is indeed a high crime worthy of full expulsion.
The entire concept of a hate crime flies in the face of the statement Impact > Intent as it is the intent that amplifies the crime. This is not to say there are no crimes based upon unreasoning hatred of the Other. I'd argue that the existence of hate crime laws as well as the levels of degree in homicide charges (from first degree to manslaughter) effectively invalidates the idea that impact is somehow more significant than intent.
The quagmire we enter with the new legislation regarding lynching is centered on the ever changing definitions of the terms we use commonly and the expanding culpability assuming intent.
When 'harm' is expanded to emotional distress and 'violence' can be retconned to include hateful speech, we're getting into the weeds.
Currently, the dictionary (and legal scholars) define 'lynching as "an extrajudicial killing by a group." Further "it is most often used to characterize informal public executions by a mob in order to punish an alleged transgressor, punish a convicted transgressor, or intimidate. It can also be an extreme form of informal group social control, and it is often conducted with the display of a public spectacle for maximum intimidation. Instances of lynchings and similar mob violence can be found in every society."
It is also defined informally as "severely criticizing or condemning someone."
Reasonably, no one envisions an anti-lynching law against severe criticism. We are not in reasonable times, gang.
A law against any extrajudicial execution by a mob is both righteous and long overdue in this form. Should the definition of lynching become more malleable, more open to subjective opinion or feelings, we're in trouble.
A guy walks into a bar. He looks distraught. Angry.
"I can't believe it's possible in this day and age," he exclaims. "Here I am, walking down the street, minding my own business and this guy comes along and lynches me, right there on the street!"
"You don't look dead to me," replies the bartender. "How did he lynch you if you're still alive?"
"Stop right there. If I say I am lynched, you don't get to tell me I wasn't. Obviously you don't understand what 'lynching' is. He walked up and asked me the time. I don't wear a watch and told him so. He yelled at me and told me only an idiot doesn't wear a watch. He was very aggressive and intimidating. For a moment, I felt very unsafe. He lynched me. Can I use your phone to call the police?"
A woman with bandages on her head, sitting at the far end of the bar, overheard this.
"Excuse me," she interjected. "Last month, a group of men came up behind me and hit me with a crowbar, splitting my scalp open. I fell, the blood streaming into my eyes, and they started kicking me. They broke three of my ribs then stole my phone and wallet. I spent two weeks in the hospital and now I owe the hospital $32,000 for medical bills."
"Ah!" cried the man. "You know exactly how I feel!"