On March 29, President Joe Biden signed the Emmett Till Antilynching Act, which declares lynching a federal hate crime. Beyond the typical definition of lynching as hanging someone, the law also considers hate crimes committed with the intent of causing serious bodily injury or death as lynching. This law, which is long overdue, formally recognizes the role the federal government has played in racial violence that has occurred, and continues to occur, in the United States. In establishing a federal law against lynching, the federal government is taking a stance against violent crimes in the United States that are a result of racial discrimination. These discriminatory acts have long been judged solely for physical violence rather than racial, and they should not be tolerated.
Specifically, the antilynching law will expand on existing federal hate crime laws in order for prosecutors to hold individuals who commit hate crimes uniquely responsible for the racial motivation of their attacks. The law adds an additional charge for hate crimes, making the maximum possible sentence 20 years longer. However, the establishment of this law raises the question of whether or not the potential of a longer sentence will prevent individuals from engaging in violent hate crimes. Specifically, violent acts, including murders, are already a crime punishable by jail time. For this reason, some wonder whether a longer jail time will deter people from committing these sorts of crimes. In fact, in a report by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2016, it was found that longer sentences do not prevent crime by much, as people are often unaware of the specifics of different charges. It is highly likely that this law could prove ineffective in preventing hate crimes.
Still, while the future effectiveness is unknown, the antilynching law does add a symbolic component to racially charged forms of violence by officially defining lynching, a word which has a strong historical meaning in the United States, as more than simply murder. Therefore, the usage of this new law will demonstrate that the United States will no longer stand idly by while Black bodies are brutalized. Additionally, this new act demonstrates the recognition of around 6,500 documented lynchings that occurred between 1865 and 1950, most of which went unpunished. Therefore, one can hope that this kind of legislation will prevent racial violence from occurring and provide some form of justice when it does.
The law is named after Emmett Till, the victim of one of the most well-known lynchings in the United States. I remember first learning about Till in middle school during our civil rights movement lesson, hearing about how a Black boy was brutally murdered while staying with relatives in Mississippi during the summer of 1955. While his assailants were not brought to justice, Till’s murder became a catalyst for activism and continues to expose more recent racial injustices. Images of him in his casket serve as a reminder of racial violence, and are sadly reminiscent of hate crimes committed today. In establishing this new antilynching law, Till’s case and the way in which his assailants were never brought to justice are recognized. The naming of the law is also impactful, as it honors Till’s life, and may provide his family some form of comfort in knowing that he has ignited positive change and has contributed to legislation against crimes motivated by biases.
Parallels can be seen between the lynching of Till and recent murders of Ahmaud Arbery and George Floyd. In both Arbery and Floyd’s cases, Black men were very publicly murdered by white men. Still, both cases had long, rocky paths to any criminal charges against the white men. Subsequently, these murders should be considered modern-day lynchings — a term many have believed was a thing of the past. Specifically, the NAACP website defines lynching as a situation in which a person has been publicly murdered without due process. In history, these public acts of violence have been attempts to terrorize Black communities into submitting to the control of white people. In the 18th and 19th centuries, lynchings were events in which white people came together to celebrate white supremacy. These attacks, still prevalent today, not only hurt the individuals specifically targeted in each crime, but pose threats to their families and the Black community, which the new law recognizes. Each heinous racial attack perpetuates the idea that Black people are not safe in the United States. It also makes one question in what ways Black people have ever been protected in this country. The emergence of new legislation demonstrates a step forward in finally providing federal protections to Black Americans.
The establishment of this new law, in its symbolic sense, is extremely important. By signing this bill into law, the United States has formally acknowledged a violent phenomenon that is abundant in its history and has admitted that previous laws have allowed these crimes to go unpunished. Still, it is difficult to predict if this law will prevent future hate crimes, and in which cases prosecutors will choose to use it. In a nation where Black bodies have repeatedly been targeted, and where often no one has been held accountable, we will have to see whether or not the antilynching law will have a large impact on racial violence in the future.
Kathleen Lion is a senior majoring in history.