Hate Crime Enhancements Are Unjust in the United States.

In affirmation of the NFL March-April 2008 Lincoln Douglas Resolution, "Hate crime enhancements are unjust within the United States", I offer the following definitions from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary in order to clarify the debate: Just: having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason; being what is merited Justice: the quality of being just or fair Hate crime enhancements: According to US Sentencing Guidelines section 3A1.1.(a), a hate crime enhancement to a specific charge occurs "If the finder of fact at trial or, in the case of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court at sentencing determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person..." The required minimum increase is 3 levels. The resolution specifically questions whether a certain policy is just or unjust, and therefore the most appropriate value for this round is Justice. I provide a value criterion of equality, which, according to Black's Law Dictionary, can be described as "The condition of possessing the same rights, privileges, and immunities." Contention 1: HCEs are Unfair Punishment. SPA: Equal Crimes Deserve Equal Punishment. In the United States, all people ought to be seen as equal under the laws, and all people ought to receive equal protection from the laws. Anne Ryan from John Marshall University Law School stated, "The punishment for a wrongdoing against one person should be the same as the punishment for a wrongdoing against another. This is the manner in which we might truly embrace equality in our nation." HCE are in direct violation of this equality, and furthermore, a direct violation of current Constitutional rights, especially the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which states, "No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." SPB: HCEs violate Locke's Social Contract Philosopher John Locke states that it is the responsibility of the government to protect the rights of its citizens. Hate Crime Enhancements violate not only the rights granted by the 14th Amendment, as previously stated, but those of the 1st amendment, as well. Hate crime laws punish people for entertaining certain thoughts or beliefs, they punish people for committing a crime based upon prejudiced motivation, but the act is what matters. These enhancements ought to be rendered unjust because of the violation of the people's rights to say or believe what they want. So we can see that HCEs violate the principles of our constitution, equality, and justice. Therefore, HCE are not justified. So we can see that HCE violate the principles of our constitution, equality, and justice. Therefore, HCE are not justified. Contention 2: Motive Ought to be Regarded Irrelevant in Criminal Cases. SPA: Motive can't be proven sufficiently to support hate crime enhancements. In a hate crime case, motive would be more heavily weighted as a determining factor because it is what creates the difference between a hate crime and a regular crime. It is an unstable factor because it cannot be proved. Black's Law Dictionary defines motive as: that which prompts a person to act. Even if the defendant showed prejudice in the past, that doesn't mean the actual crime was motivated by prejudice. Even if the criminal yelled derogatory words during the crime, even that doesn't necessarily indicate prejudice, just anger. By using subjective criteria to determine punishment, hate criminals are not treated equally under the law as other criminals. As so clearly stated by New York State Senator Robert Kolker, "How can you really know what's truly in a person's heart?" Using motive to determine the level of punishment for a crime is inter-subjective, and therefore unjust. SPB: Motive is not the same as intent. Alexander Tsesis, from the Institute for Legal Studies states, "The State must show that the elements of a crime were committed and that the perpetrator had the requisite mental state. Whether an actor had the requisite culpability to be convicted for the crime is a matter of intent." Black's Law Dictionary defines intent as the state of mind with which an act is done or committed. Motive plays no role during trials in determining a defendant's guilt, but motive should not be confused with intent. In order to be just in giving people their due, you must look to the crime committed, not why it was committed or who it was committed against. For these reasons I urge an affirmative vote.