Scott Tibbs

Revisiting the federal "anti-lynching" law

By Scott Tibbs, April 1, 2020

We do not need to pile laws on top of laws to make sure that things that are already illegal are extra illegal, which is why we do not need a federal law against lynching. The proponents of a federal anti-lynching law are extremely pessimistic in a way that does not match reality. Those are the two primary faults with the objections in the comments for my letter to the editor last week:
Same argument could be made about bank robbery.
Well, yeah. The argument for prosecuting crime at the local level applies to bank robbery, burglary, assault, speeding, rape, fraud and almost every other crime. Very few crimes should be prosecuted at the federal level. Federal prosecution should be reserved for things like treason and armed insurrection.
I guess you haven't been poaying attention lately, but there have been some vocally active groups proposing new lynchings.
This is what I mean by saying proponents of this law are "extremely pessimistic in a way that does not match reality." Of course there are evil people out there, but there is no chance that they will come to power in the foreseeable future. Does she actually think that we will have lynching proponents controlling state legislatures soon? If so, then let's see some names. Which states? Which political leaders?

Yes, there were lynchings in the past, and not enough was done to protect victims or bring murderers to justice. But that is not the case today. We are not living in 1890 or 1950. We are living in 2020. As I clearly said in my letter, "if the states were not protecting blacks from lynching, then the federal government would need to step in," but there is not one shred of evidence that states are not fully prosecuting lynching.

If I am going to be accused of being "removed from reality," then the people accusing me of that need to present evidence contradicting my statements of fact. Furthermore, the idea that my support for capital punishment is "religious extremism" is laughable in a nation where over 50% support the death penalty. Extremists are people who hold views that are not only in the minority, but are a tiny minority.

Do we really need a bigger and more powerful federal government to criminalize something that is illegal in all 50 states, and that is prosecuted and harshly punished in all 50 states? No, we do not. There is no need for "anti-lynching" legislation, and proponents of the law have presented no evidence one is needed. This is virtue signaling by politicians in Washington, and cowardice by the so-called "conservatives" who went along with it instead of standing by their own stated beliefs about federalism and state sovereignty.

Opinion Archives

E-mail Scott

Scott's Links

About the Author