I think this idea got started when the feds wanted to prosecute crimes such as murder instead of states. Is that right?
The prosecutions of murders as civil rights violations started, I believe, when some very racist decisions were made declaring innocent some men who had pretty obviously killed blacks.
But civil rights is not synonymous with equal rights for all races. The Declaration on Independence, which I know has no legal force, says
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life …
So based on that, I’d say murder is pretty clearly a violation of civil rights which can be prosecuted by the Federal government.
Murder is not generally a civil rights violation. And, the federal government has limited authority to make criminal laws, and that would not generally extend to “normal” crimes such as murder, or burglary, etc. (Although the interstate commerce jurisprudence has largely neutered that principle).
But, the federal government does have authority to pass laws to enforce the 14th Amendment’s protection of due process. So what are (potential) civil rights violations are actions by state officials (mostly corrections officers or police officers) that violate due process or equal protection. (These are referred to as “color of law violations” in that the perpetrator is acting “under color of law”).
And, since the 4th Amendment (among others) has been “incorporated” against the states through the 14th Amendment, an unlawful search or seizure is a “due process” violation and, thus, a civil rights violation.
So “murder” is not really a civil rights violation; but if a state official acting under color of law unreasonably seizes an individual with deadly force (resulting in his death) in violation of the individual’s right to be free from such unreasonable seizure, that is a civil rights violation. (Which has potential civil and criminal consequences).
The “why” has a lot of do with Reconstruction, the KKK, and a time when people took limits on federal authority more seriously. But then (as now), it has a obvious practical value if you are concerned that a state is going to be too lenient (for whatever reason) on its own officials’ violations of the citizenry’s rights.
Just a quick guess off the top of my head but maybe the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which has also been “‘incorporated’ against the states” as described in the above post) has something to do with it:
No person shall be … deprived of life [emphasis added], liberty, or property, without due process of law … .
Here are excerpts from the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Cecil Price, et al, allowing trial to proceed with the murderers in Mississippi Burning charged with federal civil rights violations.
The one case I can think of off the top of my head where this was done was against the police who beat up Rodney King. When a state court acquitted all of them, there were calls for Federal arrests, and, presumably, “civil rights violations” were the only Federal crimes they could be accused of commiting. (Federal murder laws usually don’t apply if state lines aren’t crossed and it wasn’t on federal land.)
also murder is federal crime if you kill a federal worker on the job even if it’s not on federal land.
*After the acquittals and the riots, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) sought indictments of the police officers for violations of King’s civil rights. On May 7, federal prosecutors began presenting evidence to the federal grand jury in Los Angeles. On August 4, the grand jury returned indictments against the three officers for “willfully and intentionally using unreasonable force” and against Sergeant Koon for “willfully permitting and failing to take action to stop the unlawful assault” on King. Based on these indictments, a trial of the four officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California began on February 25, 1993.[48]
The federal trial focused more on the incident.[clarification needed] On March 9 of the 1993 trial, King took the witness stand and described to the jury the events as he remembered them.[49] The jury found Officer Laurence Powell and Sergeant Stacey Koon guilty, and they were subsequently sentenced to 30 months in prison. Timothy Wind and Theodore Briseno were acquitted of all charges.[8][50]*
This was a clear violation of the Double Jeopardy clause, but the courts have more or less said that all you have to do is rename the crime and you can prosecute over and over until you get the verdict you want. :dubious:
Everyone has sort of touched on it, but murder is not a violation of federal law. However, a violation of someone’s civil rights under color of law for reasons of, among other things, race is against the law and punishable by life in prison (or death) if death results.
So, the feds have a high hurdle here. They must prove in this case that the officer violated George Floyd’s civil rights because of his race and that his death resulted.
Different sovereigns. You have a right not to be prosecuted twice for the same offence/events by the state of California, and the right not to be prosecuted twice for the same offence/events by the United States
Neither California nor the United States can just rename the offence and prosecute again and again.
Bingo. Current case law says that the State of California gets its piece of flesh. But how does that cure the harm that was done against the United States of America? It doesn’t, so it gets its piece of flesh.
Or think of it this way. I steal a car in Maryland. I drive through a portion of Virginia and then into West Virginia. Didn’t I cause a harm to the good citizens of Maryland? Then also the citizens of Virginia by having a stolen car on their roads? And then the citizens of West Virginia by having a stolen car on their roads?
These are all different governments, no much differently if I did the same thing between Spain, France, and Germany. Should I expect everyone come together and only prosecute me once? Or if I do something and only want to be prosecuted once, shouldn’t I make sure I only offend one government?
The same reason held for the all-white, racist jurors that acquitted the murderers of civil rights workers. They could not be charged, even though it was their decision that actually acquitted the murderers. Because they weren’t government officials*. But the murderers could be charged again in Federal Court, not for murder, but for ‘depriving the victims of their due process rights’ (by murdering them).
*And personally, I agree – I really dislike the idea that a jury can be punished/charged for returning the ‘wrong’ verdict.
Courts have not said that and it wasn’t a violation of double jeopardy. If states could prevent the federal government from trying an accused for the same course of conduct, it would violate the supremacy clause. States could effectively nullify federal criminal law by holding show trials to acquit civil rights violators before the feds could indict, and under your theory, the feds would be powerless to do anything. The Mississippi Burning case shows what happens when a state doesn’t really want to convict egregious civil rights violators.
Some states by statute do prevent state prosecutions of conduct that has already been prosecuted federally (New York is one such state) but states aren’t required to do so under the double jeopardy clause.
Why does it have to be “because of his race”?
If the cop in Minnesota did the same thing to me (white guy) I think the same issue would apply.
Do you have a cite? I’m not doubting you, I’ve just never heard it suggested that jurors could be prosecuted in this scenario. Further, no jury ever acquitted the murderers of the civil rights workers. Mississippi simply never prosecuted them until it convicted Edgar Ray Killen in 2005.
But I agree with you. It would be absolutely frightening if I could be drafted out of the house, forced to serve as a juror, and then prosecuted because someone didn’t like my verdict.
Civil rights law is not my thing, but I linked to the law. I believe it has been held that there must be a protected class angle to the prosecution. So if a cop did the same thing to you because you were a white guy, then he could be prosecuted. But I don’t think it is a crime (but it is a civil tort, 1983) if a cop simply violates your civil rights without a protected class hook.
Read what you linked again. You do not need to be a minority of any sort for it to apply. You can be a white guy and it would apply.
I recall somewhere that they used a law from the 1800s to justify the charges. But maybe they just meant the 14th ammendment.
This part:
So yeah, it can apply to a white guy if someone under color of law violated the white guy’s civil rights “by reason of” his race. I don’t read it to apply if someone is just an asshole and violates everyone’s civil rights equally.
“White guy” is not a race or color?