Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States.

I affirm the resolution/topic, that "Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States. " -I agree to her definition of Hate Crime Enhancements. -I define justice as "Giving Each Their Due". Therefore, my burden in this debate is to show that Hate crime enhancements are not giving each their due in the United States. Since the resolution grammatically dictates itself as the absolute truth, and also because the definition of justice is giving EACH their due, all I need to prove is that hate crime enhancements don't give some people their due. CASE / Overview: Our current legal system works, when determining causes of crimes, on a basis of "beyond a reasonable doubt". However, "beyond a reasonable doubt" does not always present the truth. In fact, (I don't need to provide evidence for this), there are quite a few times in history where evidence had been uncovered later to prove that a "criminal" was indeed innocent. When we're asking ourselves whether or not hate crime enhancements are just, it is clear that since there is absolutely no way to truly determine why someone committed an act, there will always be imperfections in the system. Because of that, we are not giving each their due, and therefore we are being unjust. She's basically saying in her R1 part on intent that if we don't have hate crime enhancements, then our legal system would fail, and that a unanimous jury vote means that intent is determined. However, just because we supposedly CAN do it with a unanimous vote of the jury right now doesn't mean that the verdict is true. Let's say an African American man owns a candy shop. I go in. I steal a box of Nerds. Does that suddenly mean I'm racist? Let's go even further, and say I was in LA during the Rodney King Riots. My jury panel happens to be all black. What do I do eh? They convict me of committing a hate crime; but that doesn't suddenly mean that I did it because I was racist. She's saying that the legal system would fail: but I don't see why this is true at all. I'm not advocating that we change the legal system in any way, I'm not advocating that we should abolish hate crime enhancements. Let's look at the topic, or, resolution, shall we? "Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States". Hmmmmmm. If I'm affirming, that means I'm proving that HCE are unjust. And unjust means not giving each their due. My job in this round is to show that hate crime enhancements don't give each their due. I don't see where the collapse of the legal system comes in if we go PRO. All I'm saying is that punishing people that supposedly committed crimes because of hate is not giving each their due. If she does not refute this argument, she has already lost the round because her entire case assumes that we can somehow figure out the intention of the convicts. RE to CON: (Capital letter labeled responses are my personal opinion) "Why [does criminal A gets the death penalty, Criminal B gets life without parole, and criminal C gets 20-40 years with parole]? [. .. ]" 1) Where's your evidence for that claim? Cause last I checked, murderer's sentences are mainly based off of a) circumstances and b) level of consciousness the killer was at. 2) Why does the status quo mean that we're giving each their due? "As a society that believes in[. .. ]Aren't we more repulsed when the criminal espouses views that fly in the face of our common societal values of liberty and equality? " K) Haha, you're quite an idealist. Z) I don't. 1) Why does what a society think of what a criminal should get for his/her crime matter? How are we giving each their due if we're using our own fear of these supposed "haters"? 2) And on that note, what do you mean by "we"? You and I? Your town? My town? Your state? My state? What exactly do you mean? And if you're advocating "United States" as an entire country, do you have any evidence on how "we" think? A poll; a statistic maybe? I look forward to your evidence next round. 3) I find high school kids that steal iPods and rob houses while everyone else is at work or school extremely abhorrent. Should we punish them more just because I thought they targeted me? Or because my family thinks so? Or because my neighborhood thinks so? "When one takes the view that punishment is predicated on not two, but three[. .. ]" 1) We're looking to "Hate Crime Enhancements" in this round, so we're only talking about intent. "harm" and "dangerousness" are nonunique to hate crimes. "In Wisconsin VS. Mitchell, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously found that, "[. .. ]It is said that when the core of a person's identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people. " 1) TURN: By punishing a person because he/she committed a crime supposedly because the victim belonged to a group of people, we are institutionalizing separatism. My opponent is saying that we should punish people that commit crimes because of their victim's belonging to a certain group of people. But by having hate crime enhancements, the government is RECOGNIZING THAT THESE GROUPS EXIST. All these things that we have worked towards, the physical manifestation of the beliefs that "[…]"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," […] "liberty and justice for all," [and that] "all men are created equal," don't we find it [extremely] abhorrent, grievous, and brutal when [we start seeing people as parts of groups again and punish people that recognize these groups…. just to end up showing that we believe that these groups exist as well]? " "Society then, in turn can suffer from the [empowerment to the idea that groups do indeed exist]. " EVEN IF punishing people because they're malicious is just, EVEN IF we can determine intent, this argument stands alone: By going CON, we're just going to cause more hate crimes to happen, because it destroys the idea that we're all just part of the human race, and instead says that "He's from Iraq! ", or "She's a catholic! " This will inevitably lead to a society far worse than the one we had in the 60's. "The basic concept that we've been taught to accept about terrorists is that they hate our way of life, so they try to interrupt it, with violence[. .. ]A hate crime is certainly terrorism in a close, vehement, personal way. " 1) So what if we're taught to believe that? Doesn't mean it's true. K) I think it's absolutely ridiculous that some people actually believe that there's a Koran out there somewhere that dictates to these "terrorists" to DESTROY AMERICA and strap bombs onto themselves. 2) Just because we're taught this way does not mean that it links to Hate Crimes. 3) Even then, she provides no link. 4) Terrorism is nontopical. Professor Jacobs explains, (Jacobs, James B. Professor at New York University School of Law, "Hate Crimes: A Critical Perspective" Crime and Justice Vol. 22. University of Chicago Press, 1997. Pg. 29) "Hamm differentiates between hate crimes and terrorist acts; hate crimes are motivated by prejudice with no underlying social or political objective, whereas terrorist acts are based on a social or political objective.