Hate Crime Enhancement

Really enjoyed this debate with my articulate and amicable opponent. His basic argument seems to be NOT that hate crimes are unfair and unequal because they offer more protection to minorities but rather that any malicious act could be classified as a hate crime and therefore the extension is unwarranted. However as the definition my opponent offered clearly defines hate crimes as being based on prejudice and malice towards a group rather than just an individual, I believe the distinction is clear and that I have offered sufficient reasons why the type of extensions I described should be applied. On the question of motive. My point was that motive should always be relevant to sentencing. A judge has to consider many factors when sentencing someone who has been found guilty. Motive is one of the most important. Self-defense is only one extreme example of how this should (and does) apply. Let's take an example instead of a clear cut premeditated homicide: Suppose that Max has been persecuted remorselessly for many years by John. Max has never provoked John in any way but John has beaten, humiliated and abused Max horribly. If Max then plots and murders John under this intense provocation it is a very different act than if John decides to take his abuse further and murder Max. Although both intended to kill and would therefore clearly be guilty of murder and need to be punished severely, motive should be considered and someone in Max's position should be treated somewhat less harshly than someone in John's. So yes, motive does matter. Now to turn to my opponent's criticisms of my reasons. (he makes no further defense of his previous arguments that I rebuked in the last round.) == "The current recidivism rate is 65.9%. Clearly, most criminals IN GENERAL cannot be rehabilitated. Plus, if they cannot be rehabilitated, then why keep them the extra time [...] it'll do not good according to you." == This is not a huge percentage. Your statistic in fact seems to prove that one in three offenders are in fact rehabilitated successfully, but in any case does not affect the comparative level of recidivism between hate-crime offenders and others. Keeping dangerous criminals off the streets is clearly the main reason for prison, rehabilitation is a secondary priority. =="WHo are we to say that different views hinder our society? It isn't hindering us right now, and there is all sorts of prejudices present. How do you know that without prejudices the world will be better? How do you know it is worse with them? And how can you prove hate crime enhancements are helping ANYTHING??"== I don't think I've ever had anyone try to convince me that prejudice on the whole is a good thing before. I do know that prejudice causes a lot of misery, violence and antagonism and therefore I think it is logical that we would be better off with less of it. Again I don't believe we should punish people for having prejudiced views or opinions, I do believe that we should aim to change these ignorant ideologies and certainly take steps to discourage people from acting upon them. I can't prove that hate crime enhancements are helping anything but again it is logical that they will decrease hate crime and may go someway towards combating prejudice. =="3) >>>>"Group directed hatred is more dangerous than hatred directed at a specific individual." How, they will commit a crime against anyone. Opposed to the hate criminal only towards a specific group? We lock all criminals away to protect them from all of society. How can you say they are more of a threat, when they only target a limited amount of society opposed to someone who will commit it against ANY and EVERYone?==" I apologise if I have not made myself clear on this point. It's group/individual, not group/everybody. The hate-crime offender harbours an active hatred towards a specific group, these are serious, generally unprovoked violent assaults. The other offender either bears a malicious hate-filled grudge against one individual or else is apathetic, not hateful and only dangerous if provoked. =="Let's thing for a second, completely outside of the debate (don't automatically deem everything I say bad because you're on the opposite side). If someone is willing to go at someone (with malicious intent), for revenge, to the point where they are willing to kill them, would you not consider that to be hate? Then, whatever the reason they hate them may be, is considered a hate crime, right? The term "hate" in the enhancement isn't preserved ONLY for racial disputes, it could e because the person is fat, because they are tall, because they did this, or because they did that. This said, what seperates the two? (Not everything you say is bad, I wouldn't dream of suggesting such a thing.) Yes, it's hate but it is certainly not a hate crime by my opponent's definition. The definition talks about classes and social groups, yes it is not limited to race but no, it does not include revenge type hatred against an individual. This separates the two. =="You've stated taht you believe in the first ammenment rights, until they go outside of this and harm someone because of it. But when this happens, they should just get a standard punishment for the crime the committed, correct? Why is the enhancement necessary? Everyone has different views, so who are we to punish based off of their view, oppose to their actions? If I steal from someone, it shouldn't matter if I did it because the person is white, black, chinese, or tall. What should matter is that I stole from that person."== The view in itself does not deserve to be punished but if it becomes the motivation for violent crime it should be considered when sentencing. Note that people are still charged with the same crime, it is a sentence enhancement that should apply because of the motive. If you steal because you are hungry you deserve less punishment than someone who steals because they hate the group or class of people they steal from. Realised that I had not posted any sources in this debate and when I Googled the resolution I was astonished to see this debate itself pop up on the first page! Anyway here is a source that backs up some of my arguments (Wiki is for lazy people I know, sorry.) "Penalty-enhancement hate crime laws are traditionally justified on the grounds that, in Chief Justice Rehnquist's words, "this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest." http://en.wikipedia.org... Resolution affirmed. Thanks to my opponent and readers.