"Hate Crimes" should not be a factor in the administration of justice

I will follow up with my rebuttals. Motivation My opponent contends that crime committed, regardless of motivation, is harmful to society. The harm is not diminished or enhanced if the motivation behind it comes to light. I agree with him, to an extent. It's only on the basis of motivation that we can decide whether it's a crime in the first place. My opponent then gives an example where a brother being killed because he was gay, or during a robbery makes no difference to the nature of the crime and has to be punished in an equal manner. Deeming one to be a hate crime and treating it differently seems to my opponent as somehow legitimizing the murder committed during the robbery. I contend, however, that this is not the case. Where I would like to differ is that in the case of the hate crime, the injured party is not limited to the immediate family of the deceased and includes all the members of the perceived group of the victim. Thus, the magnitude is of a higher scale than the other case. It is this difference in magnitude that has to be addressed. For example, theft has been divided into two categories, petty theft and grand theft [1]. This division is of nothing but magnitude, as grand theft would cause a higher degree of injury to the victim than petty theft might. For this reason, petty theft receives a lesser punishment than grand theft. Does this then mean that it's more okay to do petty theft than to do grand theft, as my opponent says? No. My opponent also brings up the feelings of the affected family by saying that the family might not be comforted by the fact that their oppressor received lesser punishment due to it not being a hate crime. Well, if the feelings of the family are to be considered, shouldn't they then have a say in the punishment? Whether the aggressor should live or die? Why isn't that taken into consideration? External to justice My opponent then contends that the function of the judiciary is to provide a fair trial for a specific crime. Well, we all know that the function of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law in the name of the state. So, when my opponent says that the objective of hate crime is extra judicial, it does not make any sense. The law is made by the legislature and as long as there is a separate law for hate crime, it's not extra judicial as far as the judiciary's concerned. The legislature will make laws that it thinks will be beneficial for the society, and thus, it cannot be called extra judicial. To remove certain laws, the citizens of the society have the means wherein they can elect representatives whom they think will repeal those laws. Until then, it would be the case that the laws are there because the society, as a whole wants them. Politicization Since we have entrusted the politicians to make the laws of the land, it doesn't make sense to say that the legislation is politically motivated. If my opponent wants legislation not to be politically motivated, he should have non-politicians make the laws. The judiciary is responsible for providing a fair trial for the defendant, but it's society (through its representatives) that is responsible for making laws. Society IS concerned, however, as to what kind of thinking leads to certain crimes. If it does not take that into consideration, it will never be able to eradicate such harmful elements from society. If such harmful thoughts are not to be eradicated through the process of law, how then does my opponent want it to be done? By processes outside of law? Or is it the case that my opponent thinks these are not harmful elements, but just criminals and don't need any extra forethought on the part of the society? Through the ages, we've seen how random elements of society have been targeted, for one reason or the other. People thought blacks are not equal to the whites, females can't decide for themselves, let alone for society, etc. Blacks received equal treatment through a process of law. Females became eligible to vote through a process of law. Society formed laws that would eliminate such kind of thinking. Would my opponent then say that these laws were extra judicial? Politically motivated? And hence should not have been done? Thought crime Contrary to what my opponent says, hate crime legislation is not legislation against thought. Nobody is convicted for what they think. It's only when they act illegally on the basis of those thoughts that they are convicted. It's the behavior of individuals that is a factor here. I believe that the behavior of a person who is acting on a hate of say, children, is different from the behavior of a person who is acting in a robbery. So, I'd like the readers to disregard this angle of thought crime legislation. Interpretational difficulties What my opponent says here is true. Hate crime should not be applied strictly for protected groups. Every crime that is perpetrated due to hate, whether it is on the minority or the majority has to be treated equally. Also, unless and until one is absolutely sure that the crime was committed due to the hate factor, it cannot be treated as a hate crime. There can be no interpretational difficulties here. The default should be just a crime, hate crime should be decided only with evidence. Summary All of the contentions that my opponent has raised doesn't consider the fact that there are groups of people that are being targeted for no reason other than the fact that they are perceived to belong to a specific group. Either my opponent thinks that such things don't exist (in which case [2]), or think that such things should be discouraged by some process that falls outside of the law. Unless he provides reasons as to why such practices should not be discouraged or ways to do it without mandating it, I'd argue that hate crime should be a factor during the administration of justice, as the harm caused to society by such crimes is way higher than can reasonably be caused by other crimes. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...