Should Zimmerman Face Federal Charges?

[Tropicana]

As George Zimmerman’s acquittal in the death of Trayvon Martin continues to stir outrage across the country, the government has agreed to consider prosecuting Zimmerman on hate crimes or civil rights charges.
But are federal civil rights and hate crime prosecutions overused? If someone has been tried and cleared of criminal charges in state court, should he or she be subjected to federal prosecution? Have federal civil rights prosecution outlived their original purpose, to overcome racist jurisdictions?

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...ederal-charges

[Tropicana]

Federal Law Provides a Backstop


William Yeomans, a professor at American University Law School, is a former lawyer with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. He was the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights before becoming chief counsel in Senator Edward M. Kennedy's office, where he worked on the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.
UPDATED JULY 16, 2013, 12:34 PM
Federal hate crime laws are a cornerstone of the civil rights laws that have changed our society profoundly. Racially motivated brutality and its threat were the unspoken yet ever present mortar that in conjunction with Jim Crow laws supported a racial caste system, the effects of which still plague the nation. Just as it was essential for the federal government to enact and enforce laws against discrimination in employment, education, housing and voting, it was necessary for Congress to enact the first federal hate crime law in 1968. As racially motivated violence bubbled into the nation’s consciousness, and state and local authorities failed to enforce the law, the federal government had to step in.

Federal prosecution may be particularly appropriate where a peculiarity of state law – like a 'stand your ground' law – makes it less likely that racially motivated violence will be punished.

Although state and local law enforcement has improved over the last 45 years, instances remain in which local authorities lack resources or do not pursue bias motivated crimes with sufficient zeal, and in which federal officials can bring superior expertise. The federal government, therefore, must have authority to pursue prosecutions when the state declines to proceed, when the state tries and fails, or when the state declines to pursue sufficiently serious charges to vindicate the federal interest.
Federal prosecution may be particularly appropriate where a peculiarity of state law – like a "stand your ground" law – makes it less likely that racially motivated violence will be punished. Similarly, where peculiarities of state procedure, rules of evidence or rules regarding jury pools and juror selection impair the state’s ability to win a conviction, federal prosecutors may have warrant to step in. Finally, federal jurisdiction allows the F.B.I. and other federal investigative agencies to provide resources and expertise to an investigation, whether it ends up in state or federal court.
In the end, the role of the federal government is limited. State and local authorities bear primary responsibility for enforcing criminal laws. Federal law, however, is an indispensable backstop with roots in our continuing struggle to create a society that provides equal protection to all.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...hts-violations