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

I hope that I will continue to persuade him that the concept of hate crime, and hate crime legislation is a bad idea for a free society. My opponent does take exception with my point of motivation in so far that an individual crime has far reaching ramifications. He believes that if a crime is motivated by hate, hate of a group, the crime is committed against that group not simply the individual recipient of the crime. However, in the interest of justice and our criminal system, those far reaching ramifications are indeed extra judicial, and are not in the best interest of justice. A specific crime should be judged on the individual incident rather than an overall attack on humanity [1]. If we begin such a grand view of justice, we do indeed redefine the intent of criminal justice. We also begin to set a dangerous precedent that can lead to a whole different use of the judiciary. An important byproduct of our criminal justice system is to discourage individuals from committing crimes, but when we are looking at solving societies problems via the judiciary we change the function of the system from that which is intended to provide a fair trial, to that which is to help shape society. It no longer is a byproduct, but rather a primary purpose, and thus diminishes justice in and by itself in favor of shaping a society to the liking of a political majority. In regards to my opponent's example of petty theft versus grand theft, the distinction is based on a differentiation of the crime itself, not the intent and is thus irrelevant to the debate. I apologize to my opponent for not explaining what my meaning was in "Extra-Judicial"[2]. It is true that the judiciary carries out laws that are put in place by the legislature, but within the context of our criminal justice system, our judiciary was not intended to address the sociological problems of our communities, but rather to provide a fair system of justice for a defendant, and for a plaintiff. To deviate beyond that scope of intent is indeed extra judicial, and hate crime in what it is intended to address is definitely extra judicial. Expanding the role of our judiciary[3] is of concern and potentially greater harm to society in the long run, than the problems that it is intended to address. My opponent seems to think I have a problem with the process that laws are enacted, but he is wrong, it is the content of the laws that I have a problem with. Yes it is politicians who create these laws, and my disagreement with the content of these laws are part of a free society. I think my opponent has lost sight of what a fee society entails. There are indeed negatives in living with a free society, and people being free to think as they please, as distasteful as some of those thoughts may be to some, is part of that freedom. A somewhat outrageous quote from my opponent: "If such harmful thoughts are not to be eradicated through the process of law, how then does my opponent want it to be done? " I don't want anything to be done. I am perfectly fine with people holding harmful thoughts, I am not fine with harmful behavior, and there is a massive difference. Every time someone holds a resentment with another person there is a crime against humanity? Do we prosecute such thoughts to "eradicate" them? What if we entrust the judiciary with more than just the behavior, but more toward just the thoughts? Such direction with our judiciary is bleak for those who value freedom, particularly the most basic freedom of all, freedom of thought. My opponent actually disagrees with my assertion that hate crime legislation is really thought crime[4]. He would be wrong. There is the penalty for the crime, and then on top of that there is a penalty for the hate - that is what hate crime legislation essentially does. To be clear, hate is a thought, not an action, as is an idea or a motive is a thought. How my opponent cannot see that this added layer of penalty is not based on thought is lost on me. My opponent also seems to be lost on the definition of hate crime. "hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group"[5] So if I simply hate my neighbor and hurt him, not because of an affiliation or perceived affiliation with a particular group, but because his dog uses my lawn as a toilet, it cannot be considered a hate crime. The opportunity for abuse in interpretation, or allowing it to fall into the capricious hands of current events and social concerns is great, and are clearly beyond the intent of our justice system. My arguments against hate crime legislation remain in tact: 1. Deterrent to motivation for crime is universally dealt with by deterrent to the crime itself. 2. Hate Crime Legislation is clearly extra-judicial, and extends the authority and scope of the court beyond the intentions of our criminal justice system. 3. Due to the nature of Hate Crime legislation it is subject to the capricious winds of politics and current events, and is contrary to the desired objectivity of justice. 4. Hate Crime is indeed thought crime, and that sets a very dangerous course for our free society. 5. The interpretational implications of Hate Crime legislation open up a great opportunity for abuse and expanding the role of this component of criminal prosecution. 1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. . http://en.wikipedia.org...