Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States.

"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. " The only place I see myself asking her for evidence is about the legal system. She says later in her responses, "The U. S Court System is my evidence. " However, this would not suffice, as I believe we all would agree that saying "Google. com is my source" or "BBC is my evidence" would not suffice as a justification. In order for warrants to have any weight in debate, they must be IN THE ROUND ITSELF. My opponent has never done that. "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. " 1) My original point here was that "beyond a reasonable doubt" combined with a unanimous jury still does not "give each their due". She never tells you WHY my example is not applicable, she just goes on to talk about something else. 2) Her point on "evidence" – STRAIGHT TURN: (Jacobs, same citation except now on Pg. 37-38, capitalizations by me) "[I]n People v. Lampkin, 457 N. E.2d 50 (1983), the prosecution presented as evidence racist statements that the defendant had uttered SIX YEARS BEFORE THE CRIME for which he was on trial (p. 50). In effect, the trial may turn into an inquisition on the defendant's character, or at least his values and beliefs. Such testimony and cross examination may transform hate crime trials into character tests, WHICH DEFENDANTS WILL PASS ONLY IF THEY ARE POLITICALLY CORRECT MULTICULTURALISTS. The result of such inquisition-style hate crime trials may be increased polarization of the community and politicization of the criminal justice system. Ironically, the emphasis on hate crimes might generate more intergroup prejudice and conflict. " JUST BECAUSE a person tells racist jokes DOESN'T MEAN that they're racist, and EVEN IF they're racist you can't prove that they did the crime BECAUSE they have racist attitudes, and EVEN IF she gets ALL OF THE ABOVE, she still loses because of my turn at the end of R1. Sure, I agree, me stealing from an African-American guy's candy shop doesn't make it a hate crime. But how would the jury know that? Especially since the court system is set up to infer that guilt is there, and especially if the other lawyer isn't there to find the truth, but to convict you in any way possible? And what if I did it during the Rodney King Riots eh? What then? ?? ? "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. " 1) Never made that argument but sure: TURN: Since she's just said that it's impossible to determine due, that means we can't give each their due, and we can't ever give each their due, which means EVERYTHING is unjust. Doesn't matter if it's abusive, it's true, and even if it is abusive, she made this argument, not me. 2) The debate stands- For me. Because I've just proved once and for all that hate crime enhancements are unjust, on the most basic level. "Like I stated in my brief, we do prove intent[. .. ]" 1) She gives no evidence why the US justice system is able to reach justice or why we should infer so. 2) This goes directly with my intent overview: We can't ever determine intent. 3) We don't convict only with proof in hate crimes. Jacobs continues (pg. 37): "Most hate crime statutes DO NOT REQUIRE PROOF of manifest prejudice. Thus, where manifest prejudice was not evident at the crime scene, the prosecutor may attempt to prove prejudice based on the defendant's character, activities, and pronouncements. […] Further, [W]itnesses may be called on to testify about how the defendant told (or laughed at) racist or homophobic jokes, or whether he EVER used racial slurs. In Grimm v. Churchill, 932 F.2d 674 (1991), the arresting officer testified that Grimm had a history of making racist remarks (pp. 675-76). " "Once again this statement makes me feel like my opponent does not understand our court systems[. .. ]" "Obvious" does not suddenly mean that proof is suddenly inferred. It's not obvious to me, and yes, I don't know the legal system very well. But since she decided to not enlighten me or any of us, we can't just assume what she said is true. It doesn't matter if I know how the US legal system works or not, as it is not the basis for justice. Said this in R1. "You find something like this extremely abhorrent? [. .. ]" 1) Does not respond to my original argument about how "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not enough. Okay, so what if I think stealing is extremely abhorrent? WHAT IF I find it more abhorrent than rape torture and murder? What then? What if my ENTIRE CITY thinks so eh? It's our city where courts are going to be held. It's not like the jury just knows all and all justice. My city's decisions may be very different from the next person, and that's exactly my question: How does she prove that every one of us abhors hate crimes as much as she does? Or, if she's implying that she doesn't need to, since when has she become the decider of what's just and what's not? 2) So my neighborhood doesn't matter. Which one does then? 3) Proof responded to earlier. "Nonunique to hate crimes? A big portion of hate crimes, like I stated in my brief[. .. ]" 1) "Big portion" does not mean "Unique". A big portion of planes have wheels (remember those planes that landed on water? ) , but that doesn't mean wheels are unique to planes. This means that we're only talking about intent in this round. And I've already shown intent determination is impossible. 2) FBI is not determiner of justice. We just wish they were. "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) Anyone want proof that there's no way to prove intent? Here it is. All I said was "haha you're quite an idealist", and she took it as an insult. I didn't mean it as an insult. It was a comment. 2) No, I don't think so. I believe I've proved that quite clearly in "Intent Determination" "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. " Umm, no. I'm saying that by INSTITUTIONALIZING separatism, i. e. RECOGNIZING IT THROUGH HATE CRIME ENHANCEMENTS, will lead to really bad results. You want to protect minorities through these laws, well GG, you've just shown that this country RECOGNIZES that there ARE these barriers, and that interactions between people "of your own kind" MUST be weighed differently than your interactions with others. By HCE's being deemed as "giving each their due", that just means there's no "unity" in the HUMAN race. "Every man is born equal"? HCE's disagree with my opponent's opening pathos appeals. They have NOT worked in the past, she provides NO evidence that it works today, I've given an argument that they will NOT work in the future, and EVEN IF I lose all that, it DOESN'T MATTER if it works or not, it matters if HCE's are giving each their due. Through multiple arguments and two turned ones, I've proved that HCE's do NOT give each their due, and since she never responded to my value of justice and since silence is consent, she therefore does not reach justice and that makes the resolution false.