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

Thanks for an LD debate! Haven't done one in 2 months, and am excited to do this! Good luck! I Affirm the Resoltion that Hate Crime Enhancements are unjust in the United States Value(What I want to achive): Justice Value Criterion(How I will do it): Proportionality Definitions: Hate Crime-any of various crimes... when motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group (as one based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation unjust-unfair Contention 1) Hate Crime Enhancements violate the First Amendment Hate crimes are crimes that are based on an idea that the perpetrator had prior to the crime. The crime itself is no different from any other crime except that it is punished harder. Why is it punished harder? Because we are punishing an idea. This is unjust and our own constitution states this. In the 1st Amendment to the constitution we are granted the freedom of speech and thought among other freedoms. Our whole system of government is based on be able to think and speak freely without being coerced by any outside influence. That's why the 1st Amendment was added. Contention 2) Intents can's be proven fairly Congress can't make a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Contention 3) Proportionality In On Crimes and Punishments, Beccaria argues that in a just society, punishments ought to be proportional to the crime—for three reasons. His first two arguments attempt to persuade us that punishments should be proportional in severity to their crimes, that is, no harsher than necessary to deter a crime. 1.According to the social contract, individuals agree to give the state power over them, but only to the extent that is necessary to create order and harmony. Therefore, the state can punish only to the extent that is necessary to deter crimes, and no more than is required. Any excessive punishment is an abuse of power by the state. 2.Second, Beccaria argues that if punishments were not proportional, then the state would in fact encourage and create more crimes! This argument depends on Beccaria's understanding of human nature as hedonistic or self-interested: if forced to choose between between a less-serious crime and a more-serious crime that are assigned the same punishment, we would be more likely to attempt the more serious crime. We gain more, for the same risk and consequences. If the punishments for robbing $20 from the local 7-11 and $2000 from the local bank were the same, which would you be more likely to risk robbing? If punishments are not proportionally assigned, the state would in fact encourage individuals to engage in the more serious crime! Beccaria's final argument attempts to argue that there should be a proportionality in kind as well as degree. . . 3.In order to best function as a general deterrent, the punishment should immediately bring to mind the crime in the mind of the would-be offender. The punishment should therefore symbolize the crime that it punishes. Consider the punishment of the 'chain gang.' The punishment is public and visible--everyone who passes by must confront the prisoners. The black and white stripes of the uniform recalls to their minds the bars of imprisonment. Finally, the labor of the prisoners--their contributing to society--brings to mind theft, the taking from society. Thus, I believe that hate crime enhancements are unjust