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

-------------------- My opponent keeps coming back to the fact that the far reaching ramifications of hate crime are extra judicial and not in the interest of justice or our criminal system. It really seems that my opponent is arguing that hate crime legislature should not be formed. For as long as there are laws pertaining to hate crime, it is the function of the judiciary to apply those laws in cases. So, I'll just assume that my opponent is really arguing against hate crime legislation and not about judicial functions. Keeping that in mind, I just want to ask my readers some questions. What is the purpose of having a criminal system? Is it simply to judge on the individual incident in isolation? Does it not have any further intentions apart from that, such as deterrence, mitigation, rehabilitation? Having a criminal system in place, in the first place, means that we are shaping society to our needs, by removing harmful elements. Does not removal of weeds in a garden constitute as shaping the garden to our needs? So, when my opponent says helping shape society is not the function of the judiciary (legislature), I gather my opponent wants to say that the laws meant to shape society should not be allowed? But that cannot be possible, as laws, by definition (the condition of society brought about by the observance of rules), shape society. [1] My opponent also says that we should not look to solve society's problems via the judiciary(legislature). Well, how else does he propose those be solved, if not by passing such laws that would help solve them? By randomly shooting people who cause problems? If such laws should be passed, it then becomes the function of the judiciary, in a way. This in no way translates to "expanding the functions of the judiciary" as my opponent claims. Also, I feel the fears of my opponent that a political majority will form laws that it likes are unfounded. There is a process of repealing laws available. They only have to vote the right people in, unless my opponent also feels democracy is untenable? I don't really know what my opponent wanted me to see in the references [1] and [2] he provided in his round, as those don't seem to work. [1] just gave me a definition of the alphabet H and asks me "What made you want to look up h? " in the seen & heard section :) -------------------------------------- Regarding my example of petty and grand theft, I take exception to my opponent saying that it's a distinction based on a differentiation of the crime itself. I doubt that there were concepts of petty theft and grand theft before. There was only the crime of theft. A legislation introduced the differentiation. I mainly put this forward to make the point that a theft is not a theft. There's a difference. Similarly, the point that my opponent is making, viz. a murder is a murder is a murder, would fall under the same category, I feel. There are differences between murders and not every murder is the same. They differ in magnitude. ---------------------------- "If such harmful thoughts are not to be eradicated through the process of law, how then does my opponent want it to be done? " My opponent claims that this is an outrageous thought, and that he is perfectly fine with people holding harmful thoughts. He only takes objection to people having harmful behavior. Well, so do I. People are prosecuted for holding harmful thoughts only when they act upon them. As long as they don't act upon such thoughts, they are free to hold whatever they wish in their minds. In pretty much the same way people are not prosecuted for holding murderous thoughts, but prosecuted for holding such thoughts when they act upon them. It's a fine distinction. Every action springs from a thought, so you might console yourself that you are just reacting to the act, but the act is not isolated. It's the thought + the act. Not every person who holds a murderous thought is a murderer, but every murderer did have a murderous thought at that time. Where does hate crime law say that people are to be prosecuted just because they hold harmful thoughts? Also, if you will indulge me. What's the purpose of a deterrent? You must've heard the phrase, "Don't even think about it. " (You are free to disregard this line if you want, but I just put it out there. ) ------------------------------- Again, my opponent asserts that hate crime legislation is really thought crime. I'll respond in the same way. You are not deemed criminal just because you hold hate in your mind. Only when you act upon it. Is any crime committed without real thought? Is crime a reflex action? If it is, you really cannot punish it. Only when it's committed with thought and intent does it become liable for punishment. I also feel that it would not be beneficial in any way for society if a majority of citizens hold hateful thoughts. It just increases the probability of people acting upon it. If anyone commits a crime because of a social situation (poverty, joblessness, etc. ), you can take steps to remedy said social situation and thus reduce the probability of such crimes occurring. But what steps can you take to remedy situations where people are hated for their gender? Or skin color? Or age? Change their gender, skin color, age? Yes, you can educate everybody. You can definitely try that. By all means. This law would just be an added safety valve. My opponent also forgets the fact that if such hate abounds (even if not acted upon), it really makes the life of the hated person difficult. Hating people don't need to commit prosecutable acts to trouble the victim. Really small things here and there make a huge difference too. What are the victims supposed to do then? It is always beneficial for society to maintain a balance, and this can be done if hateful thoughts don't abound, especially for things that can't really be changed. -------------------------------------- If my opponent really wants to bring abuse of interpretation in, I cannot help but state that almost every law is susceptible for abuse, if the lawyer is skilled enough. If a lawyer is definitely able to prove that hate exists when none existed in reality, nothing can be done. You cannot just say x person hated y without providing evidence for it. I'm really not capable of providing an argument against cooking up of evidence. ------------------------------ I'd like to conclude with a summary of my argument here as a response to the 5 points that my opponent has raised in his summary. 1. A deterrent is well and good, but if no expedient methods exist for reduction of incidence of crime, a stronger deterrent could well do the trick. 2. Legislation by definition is extra-judicial. The link [3] provided by my opponent himself says so, if I take judicial here to mean functions of the judiciary. I'll paste the relevant line here. "Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the judiciary generally does not make law or enforce law" 3. Every legislation is subject to the capricious winds of politics and current events. Legislation has desired objectives in addition to justice, like shaping society to our needs. 4. Hate crime is not thought crime as criminals are prosecuted for holding those thoughts and then acting upon it. 5. Interpretational implications of every legislation open up great opportunities for abuse. Interpretation of law is a huge topic and there are books written upon it. --------------------------------------- I thank my opponent for an engaging debate and in light of the arguments urge the readers to vote CON. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...