Hate Crime Enhancement

Thanks Snelld, you make some great arguments and put them across clearly. As you've already done so, I shall drop the overly-formal tone referring to you as 'my opponent' in the third person and talk to you directly. Firstly let's look at the two crime examples in your post above. =="Lets say the sentance for assault is 1.5 years. Lets say an enhancement is an extra year"== I should point out that I don't advocate such an extreme enhancement (additional 75%). In the previous round I stated that "I am not saying that these crimes should have vastly disproportionate sentences to similar crimes without such a specific motive, I am saying that .... slightly increased sentences and probationary restrictions should be applied." I think maybe 10-20 % would be an appropriate level of enhancement. =="Example 2- Joe walks down the street and punches Bob in the face while calling him the N word due to an argument that the two had previously had. Now, in this example, Joe would normally recieve 1.5 years but due to his N word, Joe will recieve 2.5 years."== I don't think this would actually qualify as a hate crime under your definitions: =="due to malice towards a class of people"== and =="when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group"== Joe has punched Bob =="due to an argument"== not due to malice against black people and not targeting Bob because of his race. The motivation is the key, although this can of course be difficult to prove one way or the other. However using a racist term doesn't prove that the physical assault itself was racially motivated (unless the two have never met before and these words are the only exchange prior to violence) and therefore it should not qualify as a hate crime. Regarding the tying up and burning, my point again is that the enhancement should only apply if the motivation itself was prejudicial, a person who targets a victim for no other reason than their ethnicity/gender preference etc. should receive a slightly higher sentence than one who burns his homosexual Arab acquaintance over a personal issue such as an argument or other perceived provocation. I am ashamed to say I don't know much about the first amendment, but at the risk of repeating myself I will say again that I absolutely do not believe in punishing people for their beliefs or the prejudices they hold, only if these prejudices become their motivation for violence etc. I have given several reasons why this enhancement should apply and will attempt to summarise some of these at the end of the round. ARGUMENT 1) =="Now, what really separates the two? Aren't all crimes out of hate towards the defender? Looking at the justification of what a hate crime is, you can see that the term is extremely ambiguous. You can say EVERY crime is a hate crime (and then point out that the offender did it because he was mad the other person was black white, fat, disabled, gay, or even a girl or a boy)."== I don't think your definition is particularly ambiguous, (except maybe if you take the social group/class concept extremely broadly) it makes it clear that the motivation is what separates hate crimes from others. =="The person should not be given an extra sentence based on the motivation of their crime, they should be given a sentance based on the result of a crime."== I think this goes back to points I raised in my first post. "Motive is an issue that is and should always be considered when passing sentence on a convicted criminal." You say you don't want to discuss self-defense or manslaughter but if we are to set a sentence based only on the results of crime then these cases would be just as serious as racially motivated acts of violence and murder because the result would be the same. =="ARGUMENT 2) Are you sure you can prove that they are more serious? Aren't all serious crimes a result of hatred or malicious activity? For instance, can you actually prove that because someone yells a racial slur while they commit a crime, that it is worse than someone who doesn't yell one but commits the same exact crime? (back to the Joe Vs Bob) If so how can you?"== Plenty (probably the vast majority) of serious crimes are related to greed and personal advancement rather than hatred. Of those that are to do with hatred the vast majority of these are probably cases of individually directed hatred such as revenge rather than hatred of a group, so not hate crimes. As I said before a racial slur does not make the motivation for the violence racial. If Terry walks up to Imran and punches him because he is asian and Terry hates asian people and Imran then pulls a knife, calls Terry a white b#stard and stabs him, then they are both guilty of a crime but only Terry is guilty of a hate crime. ARGUMENT 3 =="Lets say the population of the world is 100. 25 being green people, 25 being pink people, 25 being blue people, and 25 being silver people. Now, lets say that there is a hate motivated criminal who hates all green people. And there is a criminal who doesn't have a particular race he hates, but just committs crimes. How can you possibly say that the hate motivated criminal hates more? His total is 25 (only the group he hates) but the non-bias criminal is a threat to all 100 seeing as how he doesn't care who he commits the crime against."== He hates more because the 'normal' criminal apparently doesn't hate at all, he is apathetic and doesn't care whereas the greenie-hater is motivated by unprovoked malice. Admittedly he may not pose a threat to pinkies and blues or whatever, but the very fact of the hatred in his actions makes him more dangerous. Not caring is preferable to hating. I apologise again for my ignorance, but if you could explain the principle of the double jeopardy law I would be really grateful. To summarise this round then just a few of my arguments that you have so far not addressed: Reasons for hate crime enhancement: 1. The limited potential for rehabilitating offenders. 2. The repercussions on the wider community(/ies). 3. Group directed hatred is more dangerous than hatred directed at a specific individual. 4. Prejudicial crimes deserve to be taken more seriously if Society is to battle the wider damage that prejudice does. Thanks Snelld, looking forward to final round.