Hate Crime Enhancements Are Unjust in the United States.

The average reader has the capacity to read up to 1k characters. In light of this, my greatest appreciation for your acronyms and set up. I'll accept your definition of Just and Justice. So moving right along, Hate Crime Enhancements (HCE) Contention 1: It is not Injustice to distinguish crimes by motive and intent. In the United States, when an individual kidnaps a government official to affect American Policy, that crime is officially labeled an act of Terrorism. The charge levied against that individual is not kidnapping. The charge levied is Terrorism. We distinguish between kidnap or murder and Terrorism. Even though the actions are the same, as a society we distinguish between them because the motives are different. We also distinguish between different crimes of murder. There's Murder 1, Murder 2, Manslaughter 1, and Manslaughter 2. These are all the same Actions. But as a society, we distinguish between these different crimes, not because the Actions are different, but because the intent is different. If we accept the (ridiculous) notion that it is only just to distinguish between crimes by action, then we might as well give the same punishment for an accidental murder as we do for an intentional homicide. And if we accept that a Hate Crime (HC) and a Non-Hate Crime (NC) are different crimes Contention 2: HCE are Just, by my opponent's definition of Just. My opponent states that Just is "having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason; being what is merited". So does HCE conform to reason? Does it have a basis in fact? HCEs are One method by which society protects itself from hate charged criminal behavior. Is hate motivated criminal behavior bad for society? Does it result in negative utility to our citizens? Is it Irrational or arbitrary to take measures to discourage hate charged criminal behavior? By my Opponent's definition, since HCE is based on reason and fact, it is also by his definition Just. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now I've already exceeded 1k characters, but still, be that as it may, now it's time to address my opponent's contentions. Contention 1: HCE are Unfair I Agree wholeheartedly that Equal Crimes Deserve Equal Punishment as my opponent contends, but I also believe society has the right to distinguish crimes based on intent as it does with Terorism and HMC. Since HC and NC are DIFFERENT CRIMES, it renders my opponent's arguments moot and irrelevant. Contention 2: Motive ought to be irrelevant SPA: Motive can't be proven sufficiently to support HCE My opponent claims that it can't be proven "sufficiently" because "How can you really know what's truly in a person's heart?" Well I for one would like to point out the difference between "proven sufficiently" and "proven absolutely" ... something my opponent seems to be confused about. Nothing practical in life can be proven absolutely. We can't even prove a criminal act absolutely, much less the intent, or the motive. There is ALWAYS the possibility of an elaborate conspiracy cover-up if you think about it. But that doesn't prevent us from proving a crime sufficiently, or "beyond all reasonable doubt". So even though we can never know truly absolutely for certain what's going on in a person's heart, a person's past behavior, behavior during the crime, etc., are all Evidence that proves sufficiently the person's motive, even if they can't prove absolutely. SPB Motive is not the same as intent. Okay... So? No one said they were. So what? As mentioned before, Motive distinguishes between the criminal act of terrorism and the criminal act of kidnapping or murder. There is no relevance in pointing out murder is not the same as intent. And for these reasons I urge you Not to affirm.