Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States.

First, I admit my opponent attacked my points separately very well. But case as a whole was not very applicable. My opponent in his opening paragraph said that he does not need to provide evidence. If he is going to demand evidence from me, then I demand he provide evidence as well. "Let's say an African American man owns a candy shop. I go in. I steal a box of Nerds. Does that suddenly mean I'm racist? Let's go even further, and say I was in LA during the Rodney King Riots. My jury panel happens to be all black. What do I do eh? They convict me of committing a hate crime; but that doesn't suddenly mean that I did it because I was racist." My opponent gives these examples, but they are not applicable. These are NOT hate crimes. In order to convict a hate crime, you have to go into the background of the person. The evidence will include their behaviors toward the group they hate, racist jokes they laughed at, literature they read, letters they wrote, etc. You will not just be convicted of a hate crime because you stole candy from an African American's store. "And unjust means not giving each their due. My job in this round is to show that hate crime enhancements don't give each their due. I don't see where the collapse of the legal system comes in if we go PRO. All I'm saying is that punishing people that supposedly committed crimes because of hate is not giving each their due." How are you going to prove to society the just due? It is IMPOSSIBLE to determine due, so therefore it is impossible to give someone their just due. No one can define it, so that is why this debate still stands. "If she does not refute this argument, she has already lost the round because her entire case assumes that we can somehow figure out the intention of the convicts." What? This makes it sound like my opponent does not understand the court system. Like I stated in my brief, we do prove intent. We have to; or else we would be convicting the same for someone who commits pre-meditated murder,and someone who commits murder in the heat of passion. We only convict with proof. If the court does not have enough proof to convict, they won't. We already have to figure out the intentions of the convict, or else we would not have justice in our court systems. "Why [does criminal A gets the death penalty, Criminal B gets life without parole, and criminal C gets 20-40 years with parole]?[...]" 1) Where's your evidence for that claim? Cause last I checked, murderer's sentences are mainly based off of a) circumstances and b) level of consciousness the killer was at. Once again this statement makes me feel like my opponent does not understand our court systems. Where is my evidence? The U.S Court System is my evidence. This is more than obvious, so I will not provide such evidence. Convicting a criminal is NOT only based on "circumstances and level of counsciousness the killer was at." The courts consider motive, how heinous and sick the crime was, age, and factors such as whether the crime was pre-meditated or accidental. "3) I find high school kids that steal iPods and rob houses while everyone else is at work or school extremely abhorrent. Should we punish them more just because I thought they targeted me? Or because my family thinks so? Or because my neighborhood thinks so?" You find something like this extremely abhorrent? So you find this more abhorrent than a rape, torture, and murder case? I think we should stick to crimes with a degree more relevant to this debate. It doesnt matter what your neighborhood thinks... Like I stated before, there has to be substantial proof that this was a true hate crime. If I truely feel malice toward someone, I am not going to just steal their iPod to show my feelings. This is not going to be considered a hate crime. "1) We're looking to "Hate Crime Enhancements" in this round, so we're only talking about intent. "harm" and "dangerousness" are nonunique to hate crimes." Nonunique to hate crimes? A big portion of hate crimes, like I stated in my brief, is because a hate crime criminal is more dangerous to more people, rather than your average criminal. The FBI website states that the average criminal chooses their victim merely our of circumstance, convenience and location. Saying, that the average mugger, for example, will choose to rob me because I am an easy target walking down a dark street. He did not target me because he hates all 5'8' blonde females. Another example; if a guy is incarcerated for beating his wife, one may well fear for her safety when he is released. Whereas, if you have a hate crime criminal who hates all Mexicans, you can very well fear for the safety of the entire race of Mexicans when he is released. Proving, that the factor of dangerousness is very relevant when it comes to sentencing. "K) Haha, you're quite an idealist." Is that so wrong? Is it wrong that I strive to make our nation as ideal as it can be? My idealistic views are more easily obtainable than my opponents. "1) TURN: By punishing a person because he/she committed a crime supposedly because the victim belonged to a group of people, we are institutionalizing separatism. My opponent is saying that we should punish people that commit crimes because of their victim's belonging to a certain group of people. But by having hate crime enhancements, the government is RECOGNIZING THAT THESE GROUPS EXIST. All these things that we have worked towards, the physical manifestation of the beliefs that "[…]"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," […] "liberty and justice for all," [and that] "all men are created equal," don't we find it [extremely] abhorrent, grievous, and brutal when [we start seeing people as parts of groups again and punish people that recognize these groups…. just to end up showing that we believe that these groups exist as well]?" "Society then, in turn can suffer from the [empowerment to the idea that groups do indeed exist]." EVEN IF punishing people because they're malicious is just, EVEN IF we can determine intent, this argument stands alone: By going CON, we're just going to cause more hate crimes to happen, because it destroys the idea that we're all just part of the human race, and instead says that "He's from Iraq!", or "She's a catholic!" This will inevitably lead to a society far worse than the one we had in the 60's." My opponent is saying that hate crime enhancements lead to the recognition of groups. My opponent is trying to accomplish the impossible. We cannot rid our nation of the stereotypes of the groups we belong to. Asking us to do this, is going against everything in our First Amendment. It is compromising our Freedom of Expression and Religion. Earlier my opponent laughed at me for being an idealist. Well what my opponent is trying to do, by trying to diminish the recognition of groups, is an idealist action. But, it is not the idealist attitude that is going to be beneficial to our nation. So, in all actuality my opponent is contradicting himself. He wants the impossible ideal, after laughing at me for being an idealist. We need to recognize the difference between idealism and realism. The realism is that we will NEVER be able to get rid of groups. It makes us a nation. And I do not believe that hate crime enhancements are going to perpetuate more hate crimes. Yes we are all a part of the human race, I agree with my opponent there. But, it's like saying that yes, we have animals, but we should not classify them. We should call all of them animals and not acknowledge the difference between cows, dogs, pigs, etc. It's the impossible ideal my opponent is striving for. In closing, my ideals for hate crime enhancements are stronger and will stand in this debate. My opponent attacked me well, but I defended myself, and therefore, for these reasons, hate crime enhancements are just. They have worked in the past, today, and I believe that they will continue to work.