Personal tools
 
Views

Resolved: Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Overview

Value Criterion

The main debate is centered upon hate crime, which would have lasting effects upon the victim's psyche and would be violating their dignity. So, an obvious value criterion for both sides would be dignity or protecting human rights This could function on the affirmative by suggesting that violating one's liberty with extra punishment is unjust or on the negative, whereas if you don't condone hate crimes, you accept them.

Definitions

A hate crime is a crime, usually violent, motivated by prejudice or intolerance toward a member of a gender, racial, religious, or social group. In this resolution, hate crime "enhancements" refer to a heavier punishment if a crime had been committed out of racial hatred or other prejudices. For example, normal graffiti would not be punished so severely, but if a swastika was sprayed onto a Jewish temple, there is clear racial hatred behind the crime and the person would be punished much more severely. This pertains to all other aspects of crime, i.e. a lynching would be punished much more severely than a regular homicide. The United States justice system does recognize hate crimes and punishes them more severely.

See also Debate: Hate crime laws

Fairness: Hate crime enhancements do not treat citizens fairly or equally

Yes

Hate crime enhancements are unjust because it punishes two equal results (i.e. assault vs. racial mugging) with different punishments. We need to judge the concrete action of the aggressor rather than an assumed intent that cannot be proven.


No

Hate crime enhancements are not unjust. Hate crimes should be given a more severe penalty because the harm done to the victim and society is greater. Given that hate crimes are generally perpetrated against minority groups, and because these minority groups are always in a state of social disenfranchisement; it could be argued that the US government is attempting to arbitrate equality to minorities by compensating them with laws that will better favor their interests, thus forcibly "balancing the scale" of social equity.

1st amendment: Enhancement violates the 1st Amendment

Yes

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.

Hate crime enhancements violate the 1st Amendment

No

As for the freedom of speech; hate crimes are a clear violation of this. A person does have the right to express themselves, but not in a way that would prevent others from exercising their own rights. A hate crime is the ultimate attempt to limit another's freedom of expression. A hate crime is an attempt to silence the very idea that a particular person has the right to exist or to live a particular lifestyle. The idea that a person has the right to violate another person's rights for the sake of their own free expression inherently contradicts itself. The freedom of expression can never extend to the point where you are allowed to silence opposing ideas and viewpoints. Therefore, in order to uphold the first amendment, hate crime enhancements are not only just, but are in fact necessary.

The 1st Amendment is a part of the United States Constitution. The US Supreme Court alone has the authority to interpret the Constitution and have given their official position that hate crime enhancements are not in violation of the 1st Amendment (see Wisconsin v. Mitchell 1993)


Intent: Intent cannot be proven

Yes

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.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.


No

Intent can be proven. Intent needs to be punished because it is more important than the action. For example, murders are classified as premeditated, man-slaughter, or self-defense based solely upon the intent of the aggressor. Although the action is the same and the result is the same for all, intent is the basis for punishment in all the crimes. Given that the intent of a hate crime is more malicious than simple premeditative murder; it is just to enhance hate crime laws to reflect stronger punishment.

There is no denying Hitler's intent in killing six million Jews, and others. He was obviously targeting individuals based on uncontrollable traits and commiting real-world hate crimes. Anyone who denies his intent of racism is speaking against facts.

Along with the crime itself, intent is a key factor in determining punishment. If a terrorist comes into an airport with a bomb strapped to himself and sets it off, but it doesn't explode because he forgot a few wires, he should still be arrested because his intent was to blow up the airport. Additionally, if you cut someone open intending to do harm to them in your home, it is a crime. However, if a doctor cuts someone open, it is not a crime. The intent in the first example was to do harm, yet the victim could still live. Alternatively, the doctor's intent was to perform a helpful surgery, yet the patient could still die.

Hate crime laws already exist and are efficient, therefore enhancements are unnecessary

Yes

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.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.


No

Hate crime enhancements are necessary because of several factors. First, each individual within society is due justice succeeding a crime. Current hate crime laws do not meet the bar of justice. Supreme Court ruled in Wisconsin v. Mitchell the necessity of hate crime enhancements due to the ineffiency of current hate crime laws.

Only increased punishment will ensure aggressors accurately what they are due. Aggressor is due, in any crime, rehabilition. Rehabilition, especially for cases motivated by deep hatred, spawn from increased time and increased effort. To make this lengthy rehabilition possible, justice system needs to incarcerate criminals longer to time and provide them with the correct focus and concentration. Anyone who argues hate cannot be erased is not providing any legitimate argument; hate is the product of ignorance, provincial thinking, and environmental factors. Hate is not an essential human trait, we are not born hating people, it is a learned factor that can be unlearned when correctly rehabilitated.

As a result, increased punishments would help the aggressor attain what they deserve. Current recidivism rates are extremely high amongst hate crime criminals. To decrease these rates, increased incarceration is necessary. It would provide society with the greatest justice, thus answering the resolution's question of justice.

See also

External links



Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.