Hate Crime Enhancement

Hello again. I am quite new to debating so forgive my inexperience if it as a standard style of debate, but I find my opponent's approach to this debate fascinating as two rounds into a 4 round debate, he doesn't seem to have made any argument of his own. He says he is against hate crime enhancement but does not explain why. I understand though that as Pro I bear the burden of proof so I will attempt to answer his questions and clarify my position further. " 1) Provide me with a definition of crime (just regular crime) " Concise Oxford English Dictionary (10th Edition, Revised): "an action which constitutes a serious offence against an individual or the state and is punishable by law." "Can you prove that these crimes are more serios or any different than normal crimes?" I'm not quite sure what my opponent means by "normal crimes". If he means speeding, running red lights, dropping litter, recreational drug use etc. then yes, hate crimes are different and more serious for obvious reasons. Assuming he means equivalent acts of violence etc. committed without prejudicial intent, then yes, hate crimes are different and more serious because of the hateful motivation. "is it the fact that the person is prejudice, or the fact that the crime was violent that we are punishing?" Obviously violent crime deserves harsher sentences on the whole than non-violent crime, if the violence is due to racism or similar discrimination then even more so. "Does motive matter if the murder was committed with a malicious intent? For example, if I kill someone because I hate his skin color, or if I kill someone because he is in my way while I'm walking [...] does it matter? Isn't the fact that I killed with malicious intent what we should be punishing opposed to why I did it with the malicious intent?" Obviously any unprovoked attack is extremely serious and the perpetrator is a danger to society. Someone who kills anyone who gets in his way when he's walking is clearly a very unusual kind of criminal who possibly deserves secure psychiatric treatment rather than a prison sentence. Their case would be treated differently because of it's unusual nature. Someone who targets others because of their skin colour is a very different, perhaps less unusual kind of criminal who also deserves special treatment, in this case enhancement. "4) So basically, they are a threat to the entire race of people, opposed to the other criminal just against that victim?" Basically yes, if someone is going to bear a grudge against one individual he is less dangerous to society as a whole than someone who harbours resentment to an entire race or other sub-section of the population. In arguing Pro for hate crime enhancement I am not saying that these crimes should have vastly disproportionate sentences to similar crimes without such a specific motive, I am saying that they need to be acknowledged as such and slightly increased sentences and probationary restrictions should be applied. As my opponent has not addressed my points about the serious effects of hate crimes on the wider community because of the added likelihood of retaliation etc. I can only assume that he accepts them. One further argument: Prejudicial crimes deserve to be taken more seriously if Society is to battle the wider damage that prejudice does. I am not suggesting that someone be punished merely for holding racist or otherwise prejudicial opinions, but if they start to act on their hatred and target it's subjects with violent crime then they should be treated especially severely. Thanks again to my opponent and I look forward to the next round. Pro.