Resolved: Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States.

so first I'll answer cross-ex questions, ask my own questions, then go on my opponents case, and then close with my case, and voters. ANSWERS- 1. Sorry, my 2nd contention came out a bit wordy, and a few lines repeated. Basically its saying that the government has no way to prove intents of the crime(Since the difference between a crime and a hate crime is that hate crimes are done with hate in intent) So it wouldn't be fair to add the extra charge for hate. The jury could be racist/sexist, or anything else, and could be against the group in trial. That's mainly what the contention was trying to say. 2. Proportionality works on the Aff side over the Neg side because of my second contention. As you know, proportionality is how they weigh the crime. And if the crime is given extra value for proposed racism, it wouldn't be fair to the person on trial. What I believe should happen is that all crimes should be valued as equal, and the whole idea of hate crimes shouldn't be considered. This is because of proportionality. Also, this goes with my 1st contention. 3. Proportionality achieves justice. Justice is giving everyone their equal due. And if we give the criminals equal due for all crimes, it achives justice. Proportionality is the only way for the criminal to get justice. I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished, I'm saying his INTENT shouldn't be, because you can't prove. Good questions! :) My Cross Questions: 1. Can you explain a bit more on John Locke's idea? I'm half way getting it. Also, who is John Locke?(I mean what is his degree) 2. So if you're saying that hate crime enhancements are in place already, why are we debating the topic? Its non-unique! 3. The exceptions you made in you're answer to my 1st contentions are true. But can you describe an exception where HATE CRIMES are included? Thats all for my questions. Neg case: I agree with my opponents definitions, so I'm not going to argue with that. 1) Hate crimes have drastic affects on the group Hate crimes do effect the group, but I don't think its drastic enough to add more of a sentence. Take you're KK example. Were they punished any extra for the crime? Not really. All the people need to know is that they were punished. As explained earlier, hate can't be determined, so you can't punish for hate, it wouldn't be just. And are the Jews still running? No. We punished the Germans for what they did, not because of INTENT, but because of what they did. And the holocaust is over. 2.) Longer sentences will help the rehabilitation. Again, go to my contention of not being able to prove intents. 3.) If hate crimes enhancements have already taken place, this case is non-unique! My Case: 1) Again, going to my cross-ex question, can you explain an exception with Hate Crimes? Also, extend the idea that intents are proven in court, and can't be fairly chosen. 2 and 3. This idea has been extended throughout this speech, and I'll do it again. This also links to proportionality, since the intent itself isn't enough to add time. ALSO, intents can't be proven. Voters: A vote for Aff is encouraged because: 1) Proportionality works on my side. The crime intent isn't enough to add sentence. 2) As my opponent stated, hate crime enhancements have happened in cases, so the argument is nonunique. 3) Proportionality is the only way to achieve justice. People will be in fear if someone is given extra time for a so called intent. Take the Jena 6 for example. The blacks were the only ones arrested. The whites got NO TIME.. this links to... 4) The MOST IMPORTANT POINT, and why I must win, INTENTS CAN'T BE FAIRLY PROVEN. We can't be fair with the added time. A vote for Aff is a vote for fairness, and a vote for fairness is a vote for justice. Thank you, and I look foward to a great ending to this debate!