Hanging a Noose Can Get You Five Years

[slingblade]

Care to tell me how many black people have been lynched in, oh, let's say the last ten years?

Can you tell me why that matters?

Yes, I could go look it up and get you the low, low number you're looking for. But so what?
In the right context, a noose is a method of intimidation. The context is key, and you keep skipping over that part, it seems to me.

I've already said if a law is extant that adequately covers this sort of threat, the new law may be unnecessary.

But I don't get to tell other people what they should and should not consider a threat. Neither do you. I mean, go stick a swastika in your yard and tell your Jewish neighbor "it's just a symbol."

 

[PaKu]

>>>>quote:
The point is not that the law's intent is bad, but that the law is superflous -- it is already illegal to threathen people, so adding that it is specifically illegal to threathen them in this way is merely "feel good" legistlation.

It isn't as if threathening people with a noose was legal before. It's just that there wasn't an explicit law mentioning this particular method of intimidation
end qoute>>>>>>>

so it's a bit like
"do not put your living poodle into the microwave to dry because if you do it will die"

 

[Cavemonster]

Paku-
It's actually been unclear in the past whether this type of action (displaying a noose for the purpose of intimidation) was prosecutable as a death threat.

As recently as 2003 a case involving a burning cross was taken all the way to the supreme court. It is not unreasonable that specific jurisdictions would seek to make it crystal clear how they view this.

 

[BPSCG]

Yes, I could go look it up and get you the low, low number you're looking for.

Actually, you probably couldn't. I tried, and couldn't find any statistics for lynching after 1968. The FBI murder statistics for 2007 that I linked to in an earlier post said nothing about lynching as the means of death, or rope as the murder weapon. The closest I could find was a couple of hundred deaths by strangling and by asphyxiation. Whatever lynchings occurred, if any (when was Matthew Shepherd lynched for being gay?) probably got swallowed up in there somewhere.

In the right context, a noose is a method of intimidation. The context is key, and you keep skipping over that part, it seems to me.

And the context is, it is not a reasonable fear any more. It is no more reasonable than if, say, someone left a beaker full of a liquid labelled "polio virus" on your porch.

It is no longer reasonable to be intimidated by the threat of violence implied by a noose.

But I don't get to tell other people what they should and should not consider a threat. Neither do you. I mean, go stick a swastika in your yard and tell your Jewish neighbor "it's just a symbol."

I'm half Jewish. If my next door neighbor put a swastika up in his yard, my reaction would be, "What an ass****..."

If he put it on my front porch, I'd have the police pay him a visit to talk some sense into him.

I wouldn't demand he be put in prison for five years.

 

[slingblade]

Actually, you probably couldn't. I tried, and couldn't find any statistics for lynching after 1968. The FBI murder statistics for 2007 that I linked to in an earlier post said nothing about lynching as the means of death, or rope as the murder weapon. The closest I could find was a couple of hundred deaths by strangling and by asphyxiation. Whatever lynchings occurred, if any (when was Matthew Shepherd lynched for being gay?) probably got swallowed up in there somewhere.

May not matter, but I can't remember: was he lynched, or beaten and stuck onto a fence? Or both?

And the context is, it is not a reasonable fear any more. It is no more reasonable than if, say, someone left a beaker full of a liquid labelled "polio virus" on your porch.

It is no longer reasonable to be intimidated by the threat of violence implied by a noose.

But it never was for you! It never was for me, either. I didn't have to sit on the kitchen floor as a kid, playing with my toys while the grown-ups talked about "great-uncle Jim who was lynched in Georgia, remember that?" And then asking what that meant, and having it explained that years ago it was common in some places to just string up a black man because he was black.

It's never been part of my cultural capital, and I don't pretend to be able to relate to it. But I certainly don't tell an entire group of people that a fear they have that I don't isn't a valid fear anymore because I think that's all in the past now.

I'm sorry, Beeps, I just find it arrogant.

I'm half Jewish. If my next door neighbor put a swastika up in his yard, my reaction would be, "What an ass****..."

If he put it on my front porch, I'd have the police pay him a visit to talk some sense into him.

I wouldn't demand he be put in prison for five years.

Okay, but does that mean you disagree with the law in its entirety, or only with certain aspects of it, or with the sentencing guideline, or...?

 

[BPSCG]

May not matter, but I can't remember: was he lynched, or beaten and stuck onto a fence? Or both?

I was going with a fairly loose use of the word "lynched" - being killed by a group of people for no particular reason. The only other lynching I can think of that comes to mind recently is James Byrd, the guy who was dragged behind a truck. Not taken to a tree and hanged, but I'm sure the guys who did it would not have disapproved. That story made the news big-time, because it was shocking in its viciousness - and its rarity. Had it happened in the 1920s, it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.

But it never was for you! It never was for me, either. I didn't have to sit on the kitchen floor as a kid, playing with my toys while the grown-ups talked about "great-uncle Jim who was lynched in Georgia, remember that?" And then asking what that meant, and having it explained that years ago it was common in some places to just string up a black man because he was black.

I beg your pardon, but my father explained to me how the Nazis wanted to melt him and his family down into soap for being Jewish (that's why his parents left France for the U.S. in 1940), and his mother explained to me how they had to leave Moldova in the 1920s because of the pogroms against the Jews. How is that significantly different?

It's never been part of my cultural capital, and I don't pretend to be able to relate to it. But I certainly don't tell an entire group of people that a fear they have that I don't isn't a valid fear anymore because I think that's all in the past now.

But it isn't a valid fear any more, not in this country, anyway. Jews don't get melted down for soap any more, and mobs don't drag black people out of their houses and string them up any more. Not in this country, anyway. And they haven't for many years.

Okay, but does that mean you disagree with the law in its entirety, or only with certain aspects of it, or with the sentencing guideline, or...?

Well, as pointed out earlier, I find it odd that you can get five years for what is, at worst, a general statement that you hate blacks by waving a noose around, but an NFL football player gets only two years for actually using it, albeit on a dog. Is it actually worse to say (symbolically), "I hate you and wish you were dead but I don't have the nerve to actually try to do it" than it is to actually kill an innocent animal?

I regard the noose law as a law against hate speech, and I'm something of a First Amendment absolutist in that regard. I hate hate speech, but I hate seeing it banned even more. Freedom of speech is a good thing, because it makes it easier to spot the idiots. We restrict it - the way the Europeans are doing, increasingly - at our peril.

Goddammit, I'm turning into a goddam libertarian...

 

[aerosolben]

In other words, you have nothing.

And if flaming crosses aren't common murder weapons, why should they be outlawed?

No, but they are in fact a clearly expressed threat, and plausible as written.

Now, would you consider a piece of paper with the words, "I'm going to kill you with this three-week old banana" a plausible threat? Should it be acted upon? Should the government pass a law making it illegal to threaten someone with a soggy banana?

You seem to be missing his analogy. A noose is not a threat to kill you with the noose, per say - it is a threat to kill via unspecified means. Not necessarily a lynching.

So what? If I take your last post as being a threat (I don't, but let's just say), should the government look into it? Doesn't the plausibility of the threat enter into the discussion? Or is it simply the aggrieved person's perception of the threat that is all-important, and requires legislation?

One would assume the law allows for discretion in investigation and prosecution just like every other law.

Look, if people actually were being regularly lynched any more, I'd agree that hanging a noose on his property constituted a clear, plausible threat, and should be treated as seriously as, "I'm going to shoot you with this rifle next Saturday afternoon."

But they aren't. Lynching is an archaic relic of another time.

As mentioned previously, the popularity doesn't really matter - either its a threat or it isn't.

Now, I might agree that it wasn't a particularly necessary law. However, in part BECAUSE it is probably already addressed by existing laws, I don't see any new burdens on free speech.

 

[slingblade]

I was going with a fairly loose use of the word "lynched" - being killed by a group of people for no particular reason. The only other lynching I can think of that comes to mind recently is James Byrd, the guy who was dragged behind a truck. Not taken to a tree and hanged, but I'm sure the guys who did it would not have disapproved. That story made the news big-time, because it was shocking in its viciousness - and its rarity. Had it happened in the 1920s, it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.

I see now. I was trying to remember the circumstances.

I beg your pardon, but my father explained to me how the Nazis wanted to melt him and his family down into soap for being Jewish (that's why his parents left France for the U.S. in 1940), and his mother explained to me how they had to leave Moldova in the 1920s because of the pogroms against the Jews. How is that significantly different?

The symbols used.

I went to Google images and plugged in the word "lynching." Every picture on the first page is of a black man being hanged. Not jews, not whites, blacks. Ok, this doesn't say a great deal, I do know that. But I will argue it highlights my point to a certain extent. When I say "lynching," even Google knows I mean black people.

But it isn't a valid fear any more, not in this country, anyway. Jews don't get melted down for soap any more, and mobs don't drag black people out of their houses and string them up any more. Not in this country, anyway. And they haven't for many years.

It doesn't matter how long ago the last one was. A noose can be used as an extremely potent symbol. So potent that even I know what I think it means in the right context. It means "******, I want you dead."

Well, as pointed out earlier, I find it odd that you can get five years for what is, at worst, a general statement that you hate blacks by waving a noose around, but an NFL football player gets only two years for actually using it, albeit on a dog. Is it actually worse to say (symbolically), "I hate you and wish you were dead but I don't have the nerve to actually try to do it" than it is to actually kill an innocent animal?

I can't equate those. Is it worse to threaten a human than to kill an animal? Uh....

Sorry for not knowing, but who was the NFL player who used a hangman's noose to kill a dog? Vick?

I regard the noose law as a law against hate speech, and I'm something of a First Amendment absolutist in that regard. I hate hate speech, but I hate seeing it banned even more. Freedom of speech is a good thing, because it makes it easier to spot the idiots. We restrict it - the way the Europeans are doing, increasingly - at our peril.

Goddammit, I'm turning into a goddam libertarian...

OHNOES!!

I have to agree with you about the hate speech, mostly. I do think re-criminalizing certain acts that are already criminalized is overkill, but then again, I am so strongly against hatred of that nature....

I just dunno, man.

 

[BPSCG]

The symbols used.

I went to Google images and plugged in the word "lynching." Every picture on the first page is of a black man being hanged. Not jews, not whites, blacks. Ok, this doesn't say a great deal, I do know that. But I will argue it highlights my point to a certain extent. When I say "lynching," even Google knows I mean black people.

You're mixing apples and oranges. The proper analogue to a swastika is not the word "lynch," but rather, a noose. Noose and swastika are nouns; lynch is a verb.

Google "noose" and the images you'll see will be overwhelmingly pictures of a hangman's noose, with no racial content. The first page of hits I got had twelve such images, one photo of Saddam Hussein getting hanged, one a cartoon showing a Klansman with a noose, another that looks like a Thomas Nast cartoon of Boss Tweed and his pals bowing before a scaffold ("the only thing they respect") and three or four other images whose context is not obvious.

Google "swastika" and you get similar results.

The proper analogue for "lynching" would be "killing in a concentration camp oven."

It doesn't matter how long ago the last one was. A noose can be used as an extremely potent symbol. So potent that even I know what I think it means in the right context. It means "******, I want you dead."

And so does a swastika (replacing your autocensored word with another one that refers to Jews). When did expressing hatred become a crime in this country?

The appropriate response to both symbolic expressions of hatred is, "How nice. Fortunately, this is a country where the full weight of the government, as well as society's opprobrium, will come down on you if you try to act on your desire."

Sorry for not knowing, but who was the NFL player who used a hangman's noose to kill a dog? Vick?

Yeah, Michael Vick. He ran his dog-fighting operation in Virginia, as it happens.

I have to agree with you about the hate speech, mostly. I do think re-criminalizing certain acts that are already criminalized is overkill, but then again, I am so strongly against hatred of that nature....

Think about it for a second. Right now, there are hate crime laws that give you extra punishment if you commit a crime borne out of race hatred. Punching someone because you just enjoy punching people doesn't get you punished as harshly as punching someone because you don't like ni**ers. In other words, the thought, your expression of opinion, gets punished if it's behind a crime.

This law goes beyond that sorry standard; it punishes you for the expression of opinion even in the absence of any other crime.

If you can punish someone for brandishing a noose, then the day will soon come where you can punish someone for muttering, "Goddam coon," when a black man accidentally steps on his foot in the grocery store line.

 

[gumboot]

What's truly bizarre about this is that under Virginia State Law, there's no crime for verbally threatening to kill someone in general - only verbally threatening to kill someone employed by a school, while on school property is illegal, and even then it's only a Class 1 Misdemeanor.

So in other words, your neighbour could say outright to your face "I'm going to kill you, you filthy ******" and there's nothing you could do about it, but if they hang a noose outside their house they have committed a felony?

I'm sorry but on what strange planet does that make any sense?

 

[BPSCG]

What's truly bizarre about this is that under Virginia State Law, there's no crime for verbally threatening to kill someone in general - only verbally threatening to kill someone employed by a school, while on school property is illegal, and even then it's only a Class 1 Misdemeanor.

So in other words, your neighbour could say outright to your face "I'm going to kill you, you filthy ******" and there's nothing you could do about it, but if they hang a noose outside their house they have committed a felony?

I'm sorry but on what strange planet does that make any sense?

That's not quite right. What you're describing is assault, and according to this link, it is a class 1 misdemeanor, whether directed at a teacher or not.

But your point still stands. Verbally and explicitly threatening to kill someone is a misdemeanor, while hanging a noose on his porch, an action whose meaning is ambiguous at best, is a felony.

 

[gumboot]

That's not quite right. What you're describing is assault, and according to this link, it is a class 1 misdemeanor, whether directed at a teacher or not.

But your point still stands. Verbally and explicitly threatening to kill someone is a misdemeanor, while hanging a noose on his porch, an action whose meaning is ambiguous at best, is a felony.

I wasn't referring to §18.2-57. As your link points out, assault requires the intent to make physical contact with the victim.

I was referring to § 18.2-60 Threats of death or bodily injury to a person or member of his family; threats to commit serious bodily harm to persons on school property; penalty. in which the act of threatening to kill itself is prohibited.

The key distinction in regards to death threats is that no intent is required by the perpetrator; the qualifier is "the threat places such person in reasonable apprehension of death or bodily injury to himself or his family member" - in other words the offense is established in the mind of the victim, not the perpetrator.

Thus, I think that particular set of offenses more closely resembles the situation we're talking about, although your own point simply reinforces it - hanging up a noose is a felony whereas actually attempting to physically harm another individual is not.

 

[KingMerv00]

OK, This thread has gone crazy.

Things this thread should not be about

Owning nooses (still legal)
Displaying nooses (still legal)
Giving mild threads
Crime stats (Looking at you, Texas)
Lynching stats
Racism (though the law obviously has a racial aspect)
Guillotines
Bananas

Things this thread SHOULD be about
Threatening someone with death
Where a "threat" begins and free speech ends
The specific circumstances of a crime
The 1st amendment


Owning, using, and displaying nooses are still completely legal as they always have been. The law is redundant because it is almost certainly covered by other statutes. Everyone knows it is an attempt to grab votes.

That being said, it is conceivable to threaten someone with a noose.

What is not a threat by law (if I were on the jury)
Hanging a noose as decoration for Halloween
Hanging a noose to hold a slaughtered animal
Hanging a noose to kill yourself
Owning a noose
Having a noose in your closet
Thinking about nooses
Thinking about hanging people you don't like
Being angry at the noose law
Saying that black people are inferior

Things that are (and always have been) illegal
Calling someone on and off for a week saying "I'm going to hang you." then hanging a noose on their porch.

BPSCG's argument seems to be "Is someone trying to threaten you with a noose but doesn't have the guts to do it in person? Toughen up and stop whining. I'm sure they don't mean it. It will all work out fine. If not, hey life sucks."

 

[KingMerv00]

IThe key distinction in regards to death threats is that no intent is required by the perpetrator; the qualifier is "the threat places such person in reasonable apprehension of death or bodily injury to himself or his family member" - in other words the offense is established in the mind of the victim, not the perpetrator.

I just want to emphasize the bolded part. Reasonableness is determined in court.

 

[Cavemonster]

The law is redundant because it is almost certainly covered by other statutes. Everyone knows it is an attempt to grab votes.

KingMerv-
Very good post. I'm not sure if I agree with you on this point though.

As I mentioned before, the status of a burning cross as a threat made its way to the supreme court not long ago, showing there really has been some ambiguity in how such a symbolic threat is prosecuted (cases where the law and its constitutionality are crystal clear don't make it to the SC)

That said, I can't say I understand why Virginia should treat nooses more seriously than other death threats. That feels pretty political and seems based on emotional response from the public to recent events.

 

[KingMerv00]

I was all set to disagree with you to but it seems you are right. Verbal threats don't seem to be a serious crime. As a minor side note, a brief search on Lexis yields VA's "fighting words" statute:

If any person shall, in the presence or hearing of another, curse or abuse such other person, or use any violent abusive language to such person concerning himself or any of his relations, or otherwise use such language, under circumstances reasonably calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.

In case you are wondering what a "Class 3" misdemeanor is, see here.

If you notice, the threat statute says:

A. 1. Any person who knowingly communicates, in a writing, including an electronically transmitted communication producing a visual or electronic message, a threat to kill or do bodily injury to a person, regarding that person or any member of his family, and the threat places such person in reasonable apprehension of death or bodily injury to himself or his family member, is guilty of a Class 6 felony. However, any person who violates this subsection with the intent to commit an act of terrorism as defined in § 18.2-46.4 is guilty of a Class 5 felony.

The noose and the writing both are class 6 felonies. I'm assuming they treat writing and nooses differently because they are careful, considered actions while verbal threats could be made in the heat of the moment...I guess. Oh well, I don't retract my position, but I will say Virginia seems crazy.

To be fair, I didn't search that hard. Maybe VA can still redeem itself.

 

[Skeptic]

Again, I just don't get it.

I think BSPCG is wrong in thinking putting a noose in someone's yard should never be illegal. In the right context, a noose in someone's yard is obviously illegal -- it is a threat, an act of intimidation. But so, under certain circumstances, is writing the letter "K". For example, if you write it three times on someone's wall after he was threathened by phone.

So what? None of this is violating "freedom of expression" -- none of this means making nooses or writing the letter "K" as such are illegal.

The puzzling issue is that such acts are already illegal, and carry severe penalties. Nor is there any dramatic rise in such acts that necessitates more strict laws. So what's the point of singeling out nooses in particular?

 

[KingMerv00]

Again, I just don't get it.

I think BSPCG is wrong in thinking putting a noose in someone's yard should never be illegal. In the right context, a noose in someone's yard is obviously illegal -- it is a threat, an act of intimidation. But so, under certain circumstances, is writing the letter "K". For example, if you write it three times on someone's wall after he was threathened by phone.

So what? None of this is violating "freedom of expression" -- none of this means making nooses or writing the letter "K" as such are illegal.

Whew...someone who gets it.

The puzzling issue is that such acts are already illegal, and carry severe penalties. Nor is there any dramatic rise in such acts that necessitates more strict laws. So what's the point of singeling out nooses in particular?

I think the point is to get relected. To be fair though, VA's laws seem pretty screwed up here so maybe they did need a law. On the other hand, if they needed a law it should be broad enough to cover all threats, not just nooses.

 

[BPSCG]

Things this thread should not be about

(...snip...)

Bananas

Why do you hate America?

Things this thread SHOULD be about
Threatening someone with death
Where a "threat" begins and free speech ends

Free speech ends where a threat begins. I don't think anyone would argue that you have a constitutional right to threaten someone, at least not without provocation.

"Threatening someone with death." That is really what this is all about, and what I've really been at all along, if you read carefully. I've been saying that hanging a noose on someone's property is:

1. Not a plausible threat, since one will search in vain for any recent examples of people being hanged by enraged mobs;
2. Not necessarily a threat at all - it may quite possibly be nothing more than a constitutionally-protected expression of hatred.

But let's say it is somehow determined that the noose-hanger did intend it to be a death threat, and the person it was directed at sincerely believed he was in actual danger. What is the penalty for saying to someone, "I am going to kill you on Saturday at noon, with this rifle"?

Assuming it is a class 6 penalty, it gets you a mandatory minimum of six months.

So what is the rationale for imposing a mandatory five-year sentence for not actually saying you intend to hang someone, just getting the message to him by the display of a noose?

BPSCG's argument seems to be "Is someone trying to threaten you with a noose but doesn't have the guts to do it in person? Toughen up and stop whining. I'm sure they don't mean it. It will all work out fine. If not, hey life sucks."

No, that's not my argument. My argument is that someone who doesn't have the guts to make a threat to your face doesn't have the guts to physically confront you with a rope and try to overpower you and wrap that rope around your neck and hang you with it. My reaction to seeing, say, a swastika painted on my house, would be to think some gutless puke hates me enough to vandalize my house, but is too cowardly to do it while I'm watching. His actions prove he's afraid of me; why should I should feel intimidated by him?

A threat has to be plausible.

 

[BPSCG]

I think BSPCG is wrong in thinking putting a noose in someone's yard should never be illegal.

Please show me where I said that. It's trespassing, at the very least.