"Hate Crimes" should not be a factor in the administration of justice

It has further codified my stance on this issue where previously it was based on a gut feeling. I’m not going to directly address my opponent’s last post, but rather my summation should address any concerns he may have within my argument, and for those reading this debate; I am confident that you see the strength of those arguments. This debate’s resolution specifically dealt with the “administration of justice”, or the criminal justice system that we have today. It is clear that my opponent sees this system as more than a process in which we provide a fair trial within the confines of our constitution, but rather as an opportunity to change our society. A lofty goal, with I am sure admirable intentions, but let those reading this debate remember what a defendant is entitled to when facing a judge or jury. It is the merits of the case that determine the outcome of a trial, not the conditions of society. My opponent and I agree that it is the intention of such legislation to put upon the courts the task of trying people for hate, and thus work to eliminate hate from our society. It is true that an act must be committed to prove that hate exists before it is tried in court, but nonetheless it is a charge of hate upon which courts are being asked to decide. I’d like to point out that it is no more likely that the courts would have any impact on addressing hatred that might be in the hearts of men than it would in trying to remove the love that also dwells within the hearts of men. We speak of the human condition and not human behavior; while keeping in mind that my opponent would expand the current understanding and accepted definition of hate crime to all incidents of hate, not just those that are within minority groups. That is to say he is not just looking to eliminate prejudicial based hate, but every resentment and ill feeling one man might have for another, and all this is to be addressed by our courts. I will reiterate what I have said and what I believe. When living in a free society, a pluralistic society, we must accept things we may not like or agree with. We might lose sight of that from time to time as we try and cope with extreme demonstrations of what we might consider abhorrent behavior, and we cling to our government and our laws to protect us from bad feelings. In a free society I have no guarantee that someone will not hate me for good reason or not. My opponent seems surprised that I would do nothing to modify the thoughts of people in our society, at least where our courts or legislation is concerned. A free people should be able to follow their passions as long as they do not infringe on the rights of their fellow citizens; as it is within such passions that our country was founded. My opponent doesn’t see how clearly this is indeed thought crime legislation. I will leave that to the readers of this debate to determine. The penalty for the crime is on the books, and the prosecution of that crime would be carried out, but the additional layer of the hate crime is then added to the initial behavior based crime and an additional determination of that crime is both tried and sentenced within the context of the trial. Hate is not a behavior but a thought. My opponent undoubtedly is responding to the Orwellian bell that rings when it is put to him that this is indeed thought crime legislation. Our criminal justice system is meant to find guilt or innocence for a specific crime committed, it is not to work toward wiping out those things that are found within the nature of man that might cause crime. In doing so we lose the “justice” from the system we look to for protection. Our courts cannot reflect upon the conditions of society when determining guilt; it cannot look toward solving a social problem in the context of an individual crime, but rather it must determine guilt within the merits of the case. This debate is about the role of government, specifically the criminal justice system in our society; what can we expect of it, what should we expect of it, and what responsibilities it has to society. My opponent has a far more expansive idea as to its role and has greater faith in it's ability than I do. However the weight and clarity of my arguments should fully illustrate the validity of my position.