Threatening the president of the United States
Criminal law |
---|
Elements |
Scope of criminal liability |
Severity of offense |
|
Inchoate offenses |
Offense against the person |
Sexual offenses |
Crimes against property |
Crimes against justice |
Crimes against the public |
Crimes against animals |
Crimes against the state |
Defenses to liability |
Other common-law areas |
Portals |
Because the offense consists of
Frequency
The first prosecutions under the statute, enacted in 1917, occurred during the highly charged, hyperpatriotic years of World War I, and the decisions handed down by the courts in these early cases reflected intolerance for any words demonstrating even a vague spirit of disloyalty.[8][9] There was a relative moratorium on prosecutions under this statute until the World War II era. The number increased during the turbulent Vietnam War era. They have tended to fall when the country has not been directly embroiled in a national crisis situation.[10]
The number of reported threats rose from 2,400 in 1965 to 12,800 in 1969.[11] According to Ronald Kessler, President George W. Bush received about 3,000 threats a year, while his successor Barack Obama received about four times that amount.[12] This figure has been disputed by Secret Service director Mark Sullivan, who says that Obama received about as many threats as the previous two presidents.[13]
According to the U.S. Attorneys' Manual, "Media attention given to certain kinds of criminal activity seems to generate further criminal activity; this is especially true concerning presidential threats which is well documented by data previously supplied by the United States Secret Service. For example, in the six-month period following the March 30, 1981,
Incidents
Convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 871 have been sustained for declaring that "President Wilson ought to be killed. It is a wonder some one has not done it already. If I had an opportunity, I would do it myself";[15] and for declaring that "Wilson is a wooden-headed son of a bitch. I wish Wilson was in hell, and if I had the power I would put him there."[16] In a later era, a conviction was sustained for displaying posters urging passersby to "hang [President Franklin D.] Roosevelt".[17]
In 1935, 52-year-old Austin Phelps Palmer, a mechanical engineer, wrote two letters to President Roosevelt, blaming him for the loss of his $1 million fortune. In one letter, he wrote, "Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Communist and destroyer of private business. I warn you, if you destroy my business I will strangle you with my own hands. May your soul be exterminated in hell." Months later, newspapers reported that a dumbfounded Palmer was arrested after federal agents, who'd spent months tracking him down, showed up at the doorstep of his luxury apartment. His servant accompanied him to his arraignment, where he was charged with sending threatening letters to the President. Palmer pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 90 days in jail.[18][19]
A number of Nazi sympathizers were prosecuted for threatening Roosevelt. In 1940, Edward De Roulhac Blount was arrested for saying he would kill the president at the first opportunity he got. He pleaded guilty to two counts of threatening the president and was sentenced to two to six years in prison. Federal prosecutors found two birthday greetings to Adolf Hitler on Blount's yacht.[20][21] In 1943, William Thomas Reid, a known Nazi sympathizer, was arrested for telling an associate in the oil business, "President Roosevelt is one guy I hate. If I had the money, I would go to Washington and kill the president and if he ever comes south I will." Reid was convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison.[18]
In a 1971 interview, comedian
In July 2003, the
In 2005, a teacher instructed her senior civics and economics class to take photographs to illustrate the rights contained in the
In 2007, Purdue University teaching assistant
In September 2009 the Secret Service investigated
In 2010, Johnny Logan Spencer Jr. was sentenced in Louisville, Kentucky, to 33 months in prison for posting a poem entitled "The Sniper" about the president's assassination on a
In 2010, Brian Dean Miller was sentenced in Texas to 27 months in prison for posting to
Later in 2010, Michael Stephen Bowden, who said that President Obama was not doing enough to help African Americans, was arrested after making
On July 19, 2011, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of Walter Bagdasarian for making online threats against Obama. The court found that his speech urging Obama's assassination ("Re: Obama fk the niggar [sic], he will have a 50 cal in the head soon" and "shoot the nig country fkd for another 4 years+, what nig has done ANYTHING right???? long term???? never in history, except sambos") was protected by the First Amendment.[36]
In 2017, Stephen Taubert, a 59-year-old
History
The prototype for Section 871 was the British
Among the justifications that have been given for the statute include arguments that threats against the president have a tendency to stimulate opposition to national policies, however wise, even in the most critical times; to incite the hostile and evil-minded to take the president's life; to add to the expense of the president's safeguarding; to be an affront to all loyal and right-thinking persons; to inflame their minds; to provoke resentment, disorder, and violence;[15] and to disrupt presidential activity and movement.[45][46][47] It has also been argued that such threats are akin to treason and can be rightly denounced as a crime against the people as the sovereign power.[15] Congressman Edwin Y. Webb noted, "That is one reason why we want this statute – in order to decrease the possibility of actual assault by punishing threats to commit an assault ... A bad man can make a public threat, and put somebody else up to committing a crime against the Chief Executive, and that is where the harm comes. The man who makes the threat is not himself very dangerous, but he is liable to put devilment in the mind of some poor fellow who does try to harm him."[48]
Prisoners are sometimes charged for threatening the president though they lack the ability to personally carry out such a threat. The courts have upheld such convictions,
Penalties
Threatening the president of the United States is a class D felony under
Interpretation
There has been some controversy among the federal appellate courts as to how the term "willfully" should be interpreted. Traditional legal interpretations of the term are reflected by
Most of the other circuits have held that it is not necessary that the threat be intended to be communicated to the president or that it have tendency to influence his action.
Watts v. United States
In the case of Watts v. United States 394 U.S. 705 (1969),
They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J.
According to court testimony, the defendant in speaking made a gesture of sighting down the barrel of a rifle. The audience responded with laughter and applause, which the Court of Appeals would later view as potentially ominous:
[I]t has not been unknown for laughter and applause to have sinister implications for the safety of others. History records that applause and laughter frequently greeted
Hitler's predictions of the future of the German Jews. Even earlier, the Roman holidays celebrated in the Colosseum often were punctuated by cheers and laughter when the Emperor gestured thumbs down on a fallen gladiator.[63]
The boy was arrested and found to be in possession of
Other cases
Courts have held that a person is guilty of the offense if certain criteria are met. Specifically, the person must intentionally make a threat in a context, and under such circumstances, that a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by persons hearing or reading it as a serious expression of an intention to harm the president. The statement must also not be the result of mistake, duress or coercion.[65][66][67][68][69][70] A true threat is a serious threat and not words uttered as a mere political argument, idle talk, or jest.[71] The standard definition of a true threat does not require actual subjective intent to carry out the threat.[72]
A defendant's statement that if they got the chance they would harm the president is a threat; merely because a threat has been conditional upon the ability of the defendant to carry it out does not render it any less of a threat.
The posting of a paper in a public place with a statement that it would be an acceptable sacrifice to God to kill an unjust president was ruled not to be in violation of the statute.[77] The statute does not penalize imagining, wishing, or hoping that the act of killing the president will be committed by someone else.[78] Conversely, the mailing of letters containing the words "kill Reagan" and depicting the president's bleeding head impaled on a stake was considered a serious threat.[79] An oral threat against the president unheard by anyone does not constitute a threat denounced by statute.[9]
Since other statutes make it a crime to assault or to attempt to kill the president, some question has arisen as to whether it is necessary to have a statute banning threats. As the
Psychiatric matters
According to the 2018 U.S. Attorney's Manual, "Of the individuals who come to the Secret Service's attention as creating a possible danger to one of their protectees, approximately 75 percent are mentally ill."
Dilemmas related to patient confidentiality sometimes arise when a mentally ill subject makes a threat against the president. The termination of nurse Linda Portnoy was upheld after she reported such a statement to the Secret Service. The court noted that the patient was restrained and unable to act on his threats, so he was not an immediate safety risk. It also considered the patient's psychiatrist, not Portnoy, the appropriate person to assess the gravity of his threats.[83] In a study found that in those who threaten the president, the primary differentiating variable related to lethality was "opportunity and happenstance".[84] Conversely, a defendant's writings in his anger management workbook threatening to kill the president upon the defendant's release from the penitentiary were ruled to have fallen within the dangerous patient exception to psychotherapist-patient privilege.[85]
Federal law provides that the director of the facility in which a person is hospitalized due to being found
See also
- Security incidents involving Barack Obama
- Clear and present danger
- Imminent lawless action
- Lèse-majesté
- List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 395
- Shouting fire in a crowded theater
- Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)
- Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)
- Dennis v. United States 341 U.S. 494 (1951)
- Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S. 315 (1951)
- Hess v. Indiana 414 U.S. 105 (1973)
- Korematsu v. United States 323 U.S. 214 (1944)
- Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (1917)
- Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1 (1952)
- Schenck v. United States 248 U.S. 47 (1919)
- (1949)
- Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)
References
- ^ United States. Supreme Court; Walter Malins Rose (1970). United States Supreme Court Reports. LEXIS Law Pub. p. 665. Retrieved 25 July 2017.
18 USC § 871(a), making it a felony to knowingly and wilfully threaten the President of the United States, initially requires the government to prove a true "threat.
- ^ 18 U.S.C. § 871
- ^ "U.S.C. Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE". www.gpo.gov. Retrieved 2015-08-07.
- ^ "18 U.S. Code § 3559 - Sentencing classification of offenses | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute". www.law.cornell.edu. Retrieved 2015-08-07.
- ^ Million, Elmer M. (April 1940). "Political Crimes". Missouri Law Review. 5 (2).
- ^
- ISBN 978-0-19-532638-3.
- ^ a b United States v. Jasick, 252 F 931 (DC Mich 1918).
- ^ a b c United States v. Stobo, 251 F 689, 692 (DC Del 1918) ("Whatever prior to the passage of the act may have been the essential nature of a criminally punishable threat or its technical significance or description, that act recognizes as punishable an oral as well as a written threat, though not communicated or intended to be communicated to the President. The question whether the threat has a tendency to cause action or non-action on his part is wholly foreign to any proper consideration of a given case. The vital inquiry under the act is whether the threat is of such a nature as to create or tend to create sedition or disloyalty, or to stir up violence toward or resistance to the lawful authority of the President, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, or as chief executive of the nation.").
- ^ a b Comment, Threatening the President: Protected Dissenter or Potential Assassin, 57 Geo. L.J. 553 (1969)
- ^ a b The Law: Threatening the President, Time, Sep 7, 1970, archived from the original on February 23, 2009
- ^ Harnden, Toby (3 Aug 2009), Barack Obama faces 30 death threats a day, stretching US Secret Service, London: Telegraph, archived from the original on 5 August 2009, retrieved May 25, 2010
- ^ Secret Service Director: Threats Against Obama Not Up, December 3, 2009, archived from the original on December 7, 2009
- ^ USAM Chapter 9-65.140, 19 February 2015
- ^ a b c United States v. Stickrath, 242 F. 151, 153 (SD Ohio 1917) ("In this country sovereignty resides in the people, not in the President, who is merely their chosen representative. To threaten to kill him or to inflict upon him bodily harm stimulates opposition to national policies, however wise, even in the most critical times, incites the hostile and evil-minded to take the President's life, adds to the expense of his safekeeping, is an affront to all loyal and right-thinking persons, inflames their minds, provokes resentment, disorder, and violence, is akin to treason, and is rightly denounced as a crime against the people as the sovereign power.").
- ^ Clark v. United States, 250 F. 449 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1918).
- ^ United States v. Apel, 44 F. Supp. 592, 593 (D.C. N. D. Ill. 1942).)
- ^ ISBN 978-1-62157-207-7.
- ^ "Article clipped from The Evening News". The Evening News. 1936-01-11. p. 1. Retrieved 2023-11-20.
- ^ "Edward Blount 1". The Punxsutawney Spirit. 1940-10-29. p. 2. Retrieved 2023-11-20.
- ^ "Edward Blount 2". The Stockman's Journal. 1940-11-16. p. 3. Retrieved 2023-11-20.
- ^ "Threatening the president is no joke, even when it is one. - Manhattan, New York, NY - News". NYPress.com. Retrieved October 7, 2017.
- ^ Threatening the president is no joke, even when it is one, New York Press, November 11, 2003
- ^ Officials See Threat in Bush Newspaper Cartoon, Reuters, Jul 21, 2003
- ^ Matthew Rothschild (October 7, 2005), Civics Student...or Enemy of America?, The Progressive
- ^ Student Convicted of Threatening to Kill President Bush, Faces Up to 35 Years in Prison, Associated Press, June 29, 2007
- ^ Secret Service Probing Obama Assassination Poll on Facebook, Fox News, September 29, 2009
- ^ Charlie Spiering (Sep 29, 2009), Should Facebook remove groups that want to kill George W. Bush?, Washington Examiner[permanent dead link]
- ^ Teen Questioned Over Online Threats Against President Bush, Fox News, October 14, 2006
- ^ Goldman, Russell & Ryan, Jason (March 22, 2010), Health Care Bill Spurs Assassination Calls on Twitter, ABC News
- ^ Kentucky man charged with threatening President Obama, WKYT, February 19, 2010
- ^ ""Louisville Man Sentenced to 33 Mos. for Poem About President Obama," WHAS=TV, December 6, 2010". WHAS11.com. Archived from the original on December 10, 2010. Retrieved October 7, 2017.
- ^ Trahan, Jason (April 29, 2010), Arraignment ahead for Dallas man accused of Craigslist death threat against Obama, Dallas News
- ^ Associated Press, "Man Who Threatened to Kill Obama Sentenced to Two Years in Prison", The Guardian, November 1, 2010
- ^ "US man arrested for Obama threat".
- ^ File, Patrick (Summer 2011). "Ninth Circuit Overturns Conviction for Threat against Obama". Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law. 16 (3).
- ^ a b "Syracuse man gets 4 years for Obama threats: 'I should stay off' social media". 30 April 2019. Retrieved June 26, 2020.
- ^ Gold, Michael (May 2019). "Trump Fan Who Made Racist Death Threats to Obama and Maxine Waters Receives 46-Month Sentence". The New York Times. Retrieved June 26, 2020.
- ^ "Syracuse man found guilty of threatening to kill Maxine Waters, Obama". 20 March 2019. Retrieved June 26, 2020.
- ^ "Utah man suspected of threatening President Joe Biden shot and killed as FBI served warrant". AP News. 2023-08-09. Retrieved 2023-08-10.
- ^ United States v. Carrier, 672 F. 2d 300 (2nd Cir. March 1, 1982).
- ^ Act September 13, 1994
- ^ 96 Stat. 1317
- ^ 18 U.S.C. § 879
- ^ a b U.S. v. Patillo, 438 F2d 13 (CA4 1971).
- ^ Roy v. United States, 416 F2d 874 (CA9 Cal 1969) ("One purpose of the statute may have been to prevent assaults upon the President. Another purpose may have been to prevent statements that would have the effect of inciting others to assault the President. The statute seems to be designed to prevent a further mischief or evil, for if Congress desired to prevent an actual assault upon the President, then it could have drafted the statute to make it a crime to assault, attempt to assault, or conspire to assault the President. There would have been no need to direct the statute to threats. Similarly, if Congress desired to prevent incitement of others to assault the President, then it could have limited the statute to make it a crime to incite or induce others to assault or attempt to assault the President. Thus, it appears that the statute was designed in part to prevent an evil other than assaults upon the President or incitement to assault the President. It is our view that the other evil is the detrimental effect upon Presidential activity and movement that may result simply from a threat upon the President's life.").
- ^ Rogers v. United States, 95 U.S. 2091 (1975). Justice Marshall (concurring): "Plainly, threats may be costly and dangerous to society in a variety of ways, even when their authors have no intention whatever of carrying them out. Like a threat to blow up a building, a serious threat on the President's life is enormously disruptive and involves substantial cost to the government. A threat made with no present intention of carrying it out may still restrict the President's movements and require a reaction from those charged with protecting the President."
- ^ 53 Cong.Rec. 9377-78 (1916)
- ^ United States v. Glover, 846 F2d 339 (CA6 Ky 1988) ("We believe the threats made in the letters sent to the President were of a nature that a reasonable person would foresee that the receiver of the letters would perceive them to be a serious intention to inflict bodily harm upon or take the life of the President. If the appellant's argument were accepted, no prisoner could be convicted under this statute, since his argument seems to be premised on the idea that prisoners are incapable of carrying out threats, therefore, no reasonable person could consider such a threat to be a true threat. This premise is faulty. See United States v. Leaverton, 835 F.2d 254 (10th Cir.1987) (inmates convicted for sending simulated mail bomb to Senator Robert Dole).").
- U.S. v. Miller, 115 361(CA6 1997) ("Manifestly, an incarcerated individual who may be associated with a radical political organization, a lunatic fringe element, or any other criminally inclined gang or other affiliation may pose a significant risk of igniting or inspiring criminal activity outside the institution.").
- ^ U.S. v. Timothy Curtis Ballard, 6 F3d 1502 (11th Cir.).
- ^ a b 18 U.S.C. § 871
- ^
- ^
- ^
- ^
- ^ U.S.S.G. §3A1.2, archived from the original on 2010-06-18
- ^ U.S.S.G. §2A6.1, archived from the original on 2010-06-18
- ^
- ^ U.S. v. Patillo, 431 F.2d 293.
- ^ Ragansky v. United States, 253 F 643, 645 (CA7 Ill 1918) ("A threat is knowingly made, if the maker of it comprehends the meaning of the words uttered by him; a foreigner, ignorant of the English language, repeating these same words without knowledge of their meaning, may not knowingly have made a threat. And a threat is willfully made, if in addition to comprehending the meaning of his words, the maker voluntarily and intentionally utters them as the declaration of an apparent determination to carry them into execution.").
- Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969). This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
- ^ a b Watts v. United States, 402 F.2d 676.
- ^ Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705
- ^ United States v. Hoffman, 806 F2d 703 (CA7 Wis 1986) ("Contrary to the dissent's interpretation of case law, the government is not required to establish that the defendant actually intended to carry out the threat.").
- ^ United States v. Fulmer, 108 F3d 1486 (CA1 Mass 1997) ("We believe that the appropriate standard under which a defendant may be convicted for making a threat is whether he should have reasonably foreseen that the statement he uttered would be taken as a threat by those to whom it is made. This standard not only takes into account the factual context in which the statement was made, but also better avoids the perils that inhere in the "reasonable-recipient standard," namely that the jury will consider the unique sensitivity of the recipient.").
- ^ United States v. Lincoln, 462 F2d 1368 (CA6 Tenn 1972) ("By inserting the words knowingly and willfully in the statute Congress was referring to the intentional nature of the threat. The words knowingly and willfully were intended to signify that the defendant at the time of making the threat charged against him knew what he was doing and with that knowledge proceeded in violation of the law to make it. Thus, a threat is knowingly made if the maker of it comprehends the meaning of the words uttered by him and it is willfully made if in addition to comprehending the meaning of the words the maker voluntarily and intentionally utters them as the declaration of an apparent determination to carry them into execution.").
- ^ United States v. Hall, 493 F2d 904 (CA5 Fla 1974) ("Appellant's final point, that the trial judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury that specific intent to harm the President was a requisite element of the offense, is foreclosed by our recent decision to the contrary in United States v. Rogers, 488 F.2d 512 (5th Cir. 1974).").
- ^ United States v. Vincent, 681 F2d 462 (CA6 Mich 1982) ("This Court therefore construes the willfulness requirement of the statute to require only that the defendant intentionally make a statement, written or oral, in a context or under such circumstances wherein a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily harm upon or to take the life of the President, and that the statement not be the result of mistake, duress, or coercion. The statute does not require that the defendant actually intend to carry out the threat.").
- ^ United States v. Johnson, 14 F3d 766 (CA2 NY 1994) ("It is well settled that Sec. 871 requires only a showing of general intent.").
- ^ United States v. Rogers, 488 F2d 512 (CA5 La 1974) ("The District Court's instructions on the law are literally in accord with the precedents of the majority of Circuits which have construed the statute. See, e. g., Roy v. United States, 9 Cir., 1969, 416 F.2d 874. And in approving them we reject appellant's importunities that we adopt the holding of United States v. Patillo, 4 Cir. (en banc), 1971, 438 F.2d 13, affirming 431 F.2d 293 to the effect that "where * * * a true threat against the person of the President is uttered without communication to the President intended, the threat can form a basis for conviction under the terms of Section 871(a) only if made with the present intention to do injury to the President." (Emphasis added). We decline to do so and instead follow the great majority of the Circuits which have held that it is not necessary to prove an intention to carry out the threat under Sec. 871(a).").
- ^ United States v. Smith, 928 F2d 740 (CA6 Ohio 1991) ("I recognize that the objective standard adopted in this circuit does not require proof of an actual, subjective intent to carry out a threat.").
- ^ United States v. Lewis, 220 F Supp 2d 548 (SD W Va 2002).
- ^ United States v. Magers, 535 F3d 608 (CA7 Ind 2008).
- ^ United States v. Lockhart, 382 F3d 447 (CA4 Va 2004) ("Finally, the threat is not conditional in the same manner as the threat in Watts. Watts involved a threat made "expressly conditional" on being drafted into the United States military. Watts, 394 U.S. at 708, 89 S.Ct. 1399. Miss Lockhart's threat, while grammatically conditional—it begins with the phrase "[i]f George Bush refuses to see the truth and uphold the Constitution"—does not indicate what events or circumstances would prevent the threat from being carried out beyond the broad statement that the President must "see the truth" and "uphold the Constitution." Likewise, Miss Lockhart did not say or do anything upon giving the letter to the Food Lion manager that would indicate the threat was intended to be conditional. Thus, in the context in which it was delivered, the threat was not "expressly conditional" in nature as that term is described in Watts.").
- ^ United States v. Metzdorf, 252 F 933 (DC Mont 1918).
- ^ United States v. Marino, 148 F Supp 75 (DC Ill 1957).
- ^ United States v. Daulong, 60 F Supp 235 (DC La 1945).
- ^ United States v. Merrill, 746 F2d 458 (CA9 Ariz 1984) ("Whether any given form of written or oral expression constitutes a true threat for the statute's purposes is a question for the trier of fact under all of the circumstances.").
- ^ USAM Chapter 9-65.140, 19 February 2015, archived from the original on November 29, 2019
- ^ Frequently Asked Questions, U.S. Secret Service, archived from the original on 2010-12-16
- ^ Zitek, Brook; Lewis, Roya; O'Donnell, John; Dubin, William R. (August 2005), Assessment and Management of Patients Who Make Threats Against the President in the Psychiatric Emergency Service, American Psychiatric Association
- ^ Reporting Hollow Threats, vol. 38, Nursing2008, January 2008, p. 19
- PMID 863349
- ^ United States v. Lincoln, F Supp 2d 1169 (DC Or 2003).
- ^
- ^ U.S. v. Sahhar, 56 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. May 26, 1995).
Other articles
- Finer (1976), Mens Rea, the First Amendment, and Threats Against the Life of the President, vol. 18, Ariz L Rev, p. 863
- Logan, William S.; Reuterfors, David L.; Bohn Jr., Martin J.; Clark, Charles L. (1984), "The description and classification of presidential threateners", Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 2 (2): 151–167,
- Megargee, Edwin I. (1986), "A Psychometric Study of Incarcerated Presidential Threateners", Criminal Justice and Behavior, 13 (3): 243–260, S2CID 144526957
- "2.36: Threats Against the President" (PDF), Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions, p. 137[permanent dead link]