The Instigator
snelld7
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
feverish
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

Hate Crime Enhancement

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
feverish
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,777 times Debate No: 7895
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (4)

 

snelld7

Con

The term "hate crime enhancement" is fairly new (I believe the first hate crime enhancement was passed in the 1980's).

1) A hate crime is a crime committed due to malice towards a class of people, which includes, but is not limited to, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, and/or sexual orientation.

2) Hate crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or it is political ...

3) Enhanced - increased or intensified/placed higher than its usual position

The enhancement comes in when a sentence is stiffened/hardened/elongated due to evidence of it being a hate crime.

I stand against 'Hate Crime Enhancements' and as CON I'll await my opponents arguments[...]
feverish

Pro

I thank my opponent for instigating this debate on such an interesting topic.

I believe that Hate Crime Enhancement is justified because of the extremely serious nature of crimes of this kind, the limited potential for rehabilitating these kinds of offenders and the repercussions these crimes can have on communities.

Motive is an issue that is and should always be considered when passing sentence on a convicted criminal. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is the case of self-defence where man-slaughter would typically be met with a greatly reduced sentence if the killer was defending themselves. Likewise murders that are 'crimes of passion' would generally receive a lighter sentence than murder for monetary gain. Within this framework, hate crimes especially those that are totally unprovoked should be treated more harshly than if similar crimes were committed with less malice.

If an individual is motivated to commit their offense out of hatred for a specific group then they obviously pose an ongoing risk to people of this group and should be sentenced accordingly. If someone is motivated by a hate-filled ideology then the chances are that rehabilitation will not be easy and there is the possibility that resentment at being caught and punished will fuel their hatred of the targeted group and actually increase the likelihood of them re-offending.

Hate crimes can drastically destabilize a community, if a group feels that they are being persecuted then retaliation is likely and as groups become more isolated, the potential for more hate crime increases. Those who perpetrate these crimes should therefore be punished more severely as the effects of their actions can be so serious and people must be deterred from them.

Thanks again to my opponent, I await round 2.
Debate Round No. 1
snelld7

Con

Due to there being no CROSS EX, I'll ask you a few questions before I go on and answer your arguments.

1) Provide me with a definition of crime (just regular crime)

"""I believe that Hate Crime Enhancement is justified because of the extremely serious nature of crimes of this kind, the limited potential for rehabilitating these kinds of offenders and the repercussions these crimes can have on communities"""

2) First off, Can you prove that these crimes are more serios or any different than normal crimes? Secondly,Then is it the fact that the person is prejudice, or the fact that the crime was violent that we are punishing?

"""Likewise murders that are 'crimes of passion' would generally receive a lighter sentence than murder for monetary gain."""

3) Does motive matter if the murder was committed with a malicious intent? For example, if I kill someone because I hate his skin color, or if I kill someone because he is in my way while I'm walking [...] does it matter? Isn't the fact that I killed with malicious intent what we should be punishing opposed to why I did it with the malicious intent? (leave out self-defense and man slaughter because it's not what i'm talking about).

"""If an individual is motivated to commit their offense out of hatred for a specific group then they obviously pose an ongoing risk to people of this group and should be sentenced accordingly."""

4) So basically, they are a threat to the entire race of people, opposed to the other criminal just against that victim? I'm just looking for soem clarity. If this is your point then I can see your stance on this.

Thank you for providing these answers (if you decide to do so lol)

Looking forward to refuting your points.
feverish

Pro

Hello again.

I am quite new to debating so forgive my inexperience if it as a standard style of debate, but I find my opponent's approach to this debate fascinating as two rounds into a 4 round debate, he doesn't seem to have made any argument of his own. He says he is against hate crime enhancement but does not explain why.

I understand though that as Pro I bear the burden of proof so I will attempt to answer his questions and clarify my position further.

" 1) Provide me with a definition of crime (just regular crime) "

Concise Oxford English Dictionary (10th Edition, Revised): "an action which constitutes a serious offence against an individual or the state and is punishable by law."

"Can you prove that these crimes are more serios or any different than normal crimes?"

I'm not quite sure what my opponent means by "normal crimes".
If he means speeding, running red lights, dropping litter, recreational drug use etc. then yes, hate crimes are different and more serious for obvious reasons.
Assuming he means equivalent acts of violence etc. committed without prejudicial intent, then yes, hate crimes are different and more serious because of the hateful motivation.

"is it the fact that the person is prejudice, or the fact that the crime was violent that we are punishing?"

Obviously violent crime deserves harsher sentences on the whole than non-violent crime, if the violence is due to racism or similar discrimination then even more so.

"Does motive matter if the murder was committed with a malicious intent? For example, if I kill someone because I hate his skin color, or if I kill someone because he is in my way while I'm walking [...] does it matter? Isn't the fact that I killed with malicious intent what we should be punishing opposed to why I did it with the malicious intent?"

Obviously any unprovoked attack is extremely serious and the perpetrator is a danger to society.
Someone who kills anyone who gets in his way when he's walking is clearly a very unusual kind of criminal who possibly deserves secure psychiatric treatment rather than a prison sentence. Their case would be treated differently because of it's unusual nature.
Someone who targets others because of their skin colour is a very different, perhaps less unusual kind of criminal who also deserves special treatment, in this case enhancement.

"4) So basically, they are a threat to the entire race of people, opposed to the other criminal just against that victim?"

Basically yes, if someone is going to bear a grudge against one individual he is less dangerous to society as a whole than someone who harbours resentment to an entire race or other sub-section of the population.

In arguing Pro for hate crime enhancement I am not saying that these crimes should have vastly disproportionate sentences to similar crimes without such a specific motive, I am saying that they need to be acknowledged as such and slightly increased sentences and probationary restrictions should be applied.

As my opponent has not addressed my points about the serious effects of hate crimes on the wider community because of the added likelihood of retaliation etc. I can only assume that he accepts them.

One further argument:

Prejudicial crimes deserve to be taken more seriously if Society is to battle the wider damage that prejudice does.

I am not suggesting that someone be punished merely for holding racist or otherwise prejudicial opinions, but if they start to act on their hatred and target it's subjects with violent crime then they should be treated especially severely.

Thanks again to my opponent and I look forward to the next round.

Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
snelld7

Con

Thank you for answering my questions. This will be a very intersesting debate.

The reason I asked you those set of questions was to get clarification on a few points you made.
I've broken the arguments into numbers to help with confusion in later rounds.

1) The difference between a hate crime and a "normal" crime.
2) Hate Crimes are more violent
3) Hate Crimes target more people

Lets use 2 examples of crimes, and then you point out which of the 2 is an unwarranted infringement upon the criminal's rights.

Lets say the sentance for assault is 1.5 years.

Lets say an enhancement is an extra year

Example 1- Joe walks down the street and punches Bob in the face due to an argument that the two had previously had. Now Joe will recieve a 1.5 year sentance.

Example 2- Joe walks down the street and punches Bob in the face while calling him the N word due to an argument that the two had previously had. Now, in this example, Joe would normally recieve 1.5 years but due to his N word, Joe will recieve 2.5 years.

In these two examples, should we be looking at the motivation for the crime, or the fact that Joe punches Bob in the face. Don't get me wrong, Joe should DEFINATELY recieve a sentance, however he shouldn't recieve double jeopardy!

When I said "normal crime" I'm speaking about the same exact crime but without the hate crime aspect (the Joe vs Bob case for example). Even if you take the most horrific hate crimes. If someone is tied up and burned at the hands of a prejudice person, it isn't the fact that he's prejudice taht should get him a stiffer sentance, it should be the fact that he burned someone to death that we should be looking at. Hate crime enhancements are an attempt to punish someone for not viewing things the way the rest of society does. It is true that they are allowed to have the view until they act dangerously upon it, but we shouldn't punish the fact that they have the view, but the fact that they act dangerously. Our first amendment AT ITS CORE allows people to believe in horrible things, NO MATTER HOW crazy and psycho they appear to be to someone else. It allows for us to believe in whatever it is we'd like to believe in. You can't say these people that are given these enhancements aren't being treated unconstitutional, because they are getting stiffer sentences based off of their hatred, beliefs, and thoughts. If you say that it isn't the fact that they believe in something different that they're being punished for, then why is there an enhancement, shouldn't they get the normal sentance then?

ARGUMENT 1) The reason I had you define crime was to point out the justifications of hate crime enhancements. The definistion of crime was, "an action which constitutes a serious offence against an individual or the state and is punishable by law." The definition of hate crime was, "Hate crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political."

Now, what really seperates the two? Aren't all crimes out of hate towards the defender? Looking at the justification of what a hate crime is, you can see that the term is extremely ambiguous. You can say EVERY crime is a hate crime (and then point out that the offender did it because he was mad the other person was black white, fat, disabled, gay, or even a girl or a boy).

The person should not be given an extra sentence based on the motivation of their crime, they should be given a sentance based on the result of a crime.

ARGUMENT 2) Are you sure you can prove that they are more serious? Aren't all serious crimes a result of hatred or malicious activity? For instance, can you actually prove that because someone yells a racial slur while they commit a crime, that it is worse than someone who doesn't yell one but commits the same exact crime? (back to the Joe Vs Bob) If so how can you?

ARGUMENT 3) Lets look at this from a different view from a second. You're saying that people commit hate crimes are a direct threat to everyone of that race/whatever it is they target them for. Before I make my stance on this present, let me draw a little picture.

Lets say the population of the world is 100. 25 being green people, 25 being pink people, 25 being blue people, and 25 being silver people. Now, lets say that there is a hate motivated criminal who hates all green people. And there is a criminal who doesn't have a particular race he hates, but just committs crimes. How can you possibly say that the hate motivated criminal hates more? His total is 25 (only the group he hates) but the non-bias criminal is a threat to all 100 seeing as how he doesn't care who he commits the crime against.

If anything, the people who committ random crimes to random people are more dangerous because they don't care who it is they're doing it to. So, that argument flows more toward my side if any.

Hate crime enhancements are a direct violation to the 1st ammendment, and the law against double jeopardy.

Thank you and I await your response.
feverish

Pro

Thanks Snelld, you make some great arguments and put them across clearly.

As you've already done so, I shall drop the overly-formal tone referring to you as 'my opponent' in the third person and talk to you directly.

Firstly let's look at the two crime examples in your post above.

=="Lets say the sentance for assault is 1.5 years.
Lets say an enhancement is an extra year"==

I should point out that I don't advocate such an extreme enhancement (additional 75%). In the previous round I stated that "I am not saying that these crimes should have vastly disproportionate sentences to similar crimes without such a specific motive, I am saying that .... slightly increased sentences and probationary restrictions should be applied." I think maybe 10-20 % would be an appropriate level of enhancement.

=="Example 2- Joe walks down the street and punches Bob in the face while calling him the N word due to an argument that the two had previously had. Now, in this example, Joe would normally recieve 1.5 years but due to his N word, Joe will recieve 2.5 years."==

I don't think this would actually qualify as a hate crime under your definitions: =="due to malice towards a class of people"== and =="when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group"==

Joe has punched Bob =="due to an argument"== not due to malice against black people and not targeting Bob because of his race.

The motivation is the key, although this can of course be difficult to prove one way or the other. However using a racist term doesn't prove that the physical assault itself was racially motivated (unless the two have never met before and these words are the only exchange prior to violence) and therefore it should not qualify as a hate crime.

Regarding the tying up and burning, my point again is that the enhancement should only apply if the motivation itself was prejudicial, a person who targets a victim for no other reason than their ethnicity/gender preference etc. should receive a slightly higher sentence than one who burns his homosexual Arab acquaintance over a personal issue such as an argument or other perceived provocation.

I am ashamed to say I don't know much about the first amendment, but at the risk of repeating myself I will say again that I absolutely do not believe in punishing people for their beliefs or the prejudices they hold, only if these prejudices become their motivation for violence etc. I have given several reasons why this enhancement should apply and will attempt to summarise some of these at the end of the round.

ARGUMENT 1)

=="Now, what really separates the two? Aren't all crimes out of hate towards the defender? Looking at the justification of what a hate crime is, you can see that the term is extremely ambiguous. You can say EVERY crime is a hate crime (and then point out that the offender did it because he was mad the other person was black white, fat, disabled, gay, or even a girl or a boy)."==

I don't think your definition is particularly ambiguous, (except maybe if you take the social group/class concept extremely broadly) it makes it clear that the motivation is what separates hate crimes from others.

=="The person should not be given an extra sentence based on the motivation of their crime, they should be given a sentance based on the result of a crime."==

I think this goes back to points I raised in my first post. "Motive is an issue that is and should always be considered when passing sentence on a convicted criminal."
You say you don't want to discuss self-defense or manslaughter but if we are to set a sentence based only on the results of crime then these cases would be just as serious as racially motivated acts of violence and murder because the result would be the same.

=="ARGUMENT 2) Are you sure you can prove that they are more serious? Aren't all serious crimes a result of hatred or malicious activity? For instance, can you actually prove that because someone yells a racial slur while they commit a crime, that it is worse than someone who doesn't yell one but commits the same exact crime? (back to the Joe Vs Bob) If so how can you?"==

Plenty (probably the vast majority) of serious crimes are related to greed and personal advancement rather than hatred. Of those that are to do with hatred the vast majority of these are probably cases of individually directed hatred such as revenge rather than hatred of a group, so not hate crimes.

As I said before a racial slur does not make the motivation for the violence racial.

If Terry walks up to Imran and punches him because he is asian and Terry hates asian people and Imran then pulls a knife, calls Terry a white b#stard and stabs him, then they are both guilty of a crime but only Terry is guilty of a hate crime.

ARGUMENT 3
=="Lets say the population of the world is 100. 25 being green people, 25 being pink people, 25 being blue people, and 25 being silver people. Now, lets say that there is a hate motivated criminal who hates all green people. And there is a criminal who doesn't have a particular race he hates, but just committs crimes. How can you possibly say that the hate motivated criminal hates more? His total is 25 (only the group he hates) but the non-bias criminal is a threat to all 100 seeing as how he doesn't care who he commits the crime against."==

He hates more because the 'normal' criminal apparently doesn't hate at all, he is apathetic and doesn't care whereas the greenie-hater is motivated by unprovoked malice. Admittedly he may not pose a threat to pinkies and blues or whatever, but the very fact of the hatred in his actions makes him more dangerous.

Not caring is preferable to hating.

I apologise again for my ignorance, but if you could explain the principle of the double jeopardy law I would be really grateful.

To summarise this round then just a few of my arguments that you have so far not addressed:

Reasons for hate crime enhancement:

1. The limited potential for rehabilitating offenders.
2. The repercussions on the wider community(/ies).
3. Group directed hatred is more dangerous than hatred directed at a specific individual.
4. Prejudicial crimes deserve to be taken more seriously if Society is to battle the wider damage that prejudice does.

Thanks Snelld, looking forward to final round.
Debate Round No. 3
snelld7

Con

"Does motive matter if the murder was committed with a malicious intent? For example, if I kill someone because I hate his skin color, or if I kill someone because he is in my way while I'm walking [...] does it matter?"~My quote
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something I wanted to get cleared up.

When I said "The person should not be given an extra sentence based on the motivation of their crime, they should be given a sentance based on the result of a crime." You responded with how we have to take motive into consideration because we wouldn't be able to differentiate self-defense etc. Obviously, in these cases, motive should be taken into effect. What my point was, was that when it's an action of malicious intent, motive doesn't matter (BECAUSE THE INTENT WAS TO KILL, SO THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE DEALT SOLELY OFF OF THIS). That's what I was speaking of when I asked to leave out accidents, self-defense, and things along this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reasons for my opponent to support hate crime enhancements:

1. The limited potential for rehabilitating offenders.
2. The repercussions on the wider community(/ies).
3. Group directed hatred is more dangerous than hatred directed at a specific individual.
4. Prejudicial crimes deserve to be taken more seriously if Society is to battle the wider damage that prejudice does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since these are my opponents reasons for the support of hate crime enhancements, lets go at them one by one.

1) >>>"The limited potential for rehabilitating offenders."

== The current recidivism rate is 65.9%. Clearly, most criminals IN GENERAL cannot be rehabilitated. Plus, if they cannot be rehabilitated, then why keep them the extra time [...] it'll do not good according to you.

2) >>>"The repercussions on the wider community(/ies)."
(I've combined this with 4)

WHo are we to say that different views hinder our society? It isn't hindering us right now, and there is all sorts of prejudices present. How do you know that without prejudices the world will be better? How do you know it is worse with them? And how can you prove hate crime enhancements are helping ANYTHING??

3) >>>>"Group directed hatred is more dangerous than hatred directed at a specific individual."

How, they will commit a crime against anyone. Opposed to the hate criminal only towards a specific group? We lock all criminals away to protect them from all of society. How can you say they are more of a threat, when they only target a limited amount of society opposed to someone who will commit it against ANY and EVERYone?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>"Plenty (probably the vast majority) of serious crimes are related to greed and personal advancement rather than hatred.Of those that are to do with hatred the vast majority of these are probably cases of individually directed hatred such as revenge rather than hatred of a group, so not hate crimes."

(this is what you've stated in your post just now)

Let's thing for a second, comepletely outside of the debate (don't automatically deem everything I say bad because you're on the opposite side). If someone is willing to go at someone (with malicious intent), for revenge, to the point where they are willing to kill them, would you not consider that to be hate? Then, whatever the reason they hate them may be, is considered a hate crime, right? The term "hate" in the enhancement isn't preserved ONLY for racial disputes, it could e because the person is fat, because they are tall, because they did this, or because they did that. This said, what seperates the two?

Can you see where I'm coming from on this point now?

And because to commit a crime with malicious intent, you must first have to hate the person you're going against [...] there should be no seperation of punishment for hate crime offenders. You've stated taht you believe in the first ammenment rights, until they go outside of this and harm someone because of it. But when this happens, they should just get a standard punishment for the crime the committed, correct? Why is the enhancement necessary? Everyone has different views, so who are we to punish based off of their view, oppose to their actions? If I steal from someone, it shouldn't matter if I did it because the person is white, black, chinese, or tall. What should matter is that I stole from that person.

Resolution Negated.

Looking forward to your last speech, this has turned out quite interesting.
feverish

Pro

Really enjoyed this debate with my articulate and amicable opponent.

His basic argument seems to be NOT that hate crimes are unfair and unequal because they offer more protection to minorities but rather that any malicious act could be classified as a hate crime and therefore the extension is unwarranted.

However as the definition my opponent offered clearly defines hate crimes as being based on prejudice and malice towards a group rather than just an individual, I believe the distinction is clear and that I have offered sufficient reasons why the type of extensions I described should be applied.

On the question of motive.

My point was that motive should always be relevant to sentencing. A judge has to consider many factors when sentencing someone who has been found guilty. Motive is one of the most important.
Self-defense is only one extreme example of how this should (and does) apply.
Let's take an example instead of a clear cut premeditated homicide:

Suppose that Max has been persecuted remorselessly for many years by John. Max has never provoked John in any way but John has beaten, humiliated and abused Max horribly.
If Max then plots and murders John under this intense provocation it is a very different act than if John decides to take his abuse further and murder Max.
Although both intended to kill and would therefore clearly be guilty of murder and need to be punished severely, motive should be considered and someone in Max's position should be treated somewhat less harshly than someone in John's.

So yes, motive does matter.

Now to turn to my opponent's criticisms of my reasons. (he makes no further defense of his previous arguments that I rebuked in the last round.)

== "The current recidivism rate is 65.9%. Clearly, most criminals IN GENERAL cannot be rehabilitated. Plus, if they cannot be rehabilitated, then why keep them the extra time [...] it'll do not good according to you." ==

This is not a huge percentage. Your statistic in fact seems to prove that one in three offenders are in fact rehabilitated successfully, but in any case does not affect the comparative level of recidivism between hate-crime offenders and others. Keeping dangerous criminals off the streets is clearly the main reason for prison, rehabilitation is a secondary priority.

=="WHo are we to say that different views hinder our society? It isn't hindering us right now, and there is all sorts of prejudices present. How do you know that without prejudices the world will be better? How do you know it is worse with them? And how can you prove hate crime enhancements are helping ANYTHING??"==

I don't think I've ever had anyone try to convince me that prejudice on the whole is a good thing before.

I do know that prejudice causes a lot of misery, violence and antagonism and therefore I think it is logical that we would be better off with less of it.

Again I don't believe we should punish people for having prejudiced views or opinions, I do believe that we should aim to change these ignorant ideologies and certainly take steps to discourage people from acting upon them.

I can't prove that hate crime enhancements are helping anything but again it is logical that they will decrease hate crime and may go someway towards combating prejudice.

=="3) >>>>"Group directed hatred is more dangerous than hatred directed at a specific individual."
How, they will commit a crime against anyone. Opposed to the hate criminal only towards a specific group? We lock all criminals away to protect them from all of society. How can you say they are more of a threat, when they only target a limited amount of society opposed to someone who will commit it against ANY and EVERYone?=="

I apologise if I have not made myself clear on this point. It's group/individual, not group/everybody.

The hate-crime offender harbours an active hatred towards a specific group, these are serious, generally unprovoked violent assaults.
The other offender either bears a malicious hate-filled grudge against one individual or else is apathetic, not hateful and only dangerous if provoked.

=="Let's thing for a second, completely outside of the debate (don't automatically deem everything I say bad because you're on the opposite side). If someone is willing to go at someone (with malicious intent), for revenge, to the point where they are willing to kill them, would you not consider that to be hate? Then, whatever the reason they hate them may be, is considered a hate crime, right? The term "hate" in the enhancement isn't preserved ONLY for racial disputes, it could e because the person is fat, because they are tall, because they did this, or because they did that. This said, what seperates the two?

(Not everything you say is bad, I wouldn't dream of suggesting such a thing.)

Yes, it's hate but it is certainly not a hate crime by my opponent's definition.

The definition talks about classes and social groups, yes it is not limited to race but no, it does not include revenge type hatred against an individual. This separates the two.

=="You've stated taht you believe in the first ammenment rights, until they go outside of this and harm someone because of it. But when this happens, they should just get a standard punishment for the crime the committed, correct? Why is the enhancement necessary? Everyone has different views, so who are we to punish based off of their view, oppose to their actions? If I steal from someone, it shouldn't matter if I did it because the person is white, black, chinese, or tall. What should matter is that I stole from that person."==

The view in itself does not deserve to be punished but if it becomes the motivation for violent crime it should be considered when sentencing. Note that people are still charged with the same crime, it is a sentence enhancement that should apply because of the motive.

If you steal because you are hungry you deserve less punishment than someone who steals because they hate the group or class of people they steal from.

Realised that I had not posted any sources in this debate and when I Googled the resolution I was astonished to see this debate itself pop up on the first page!

Anyway here is a source that backs up some of my arguments (Wiki is for lazy people I know, sorry.)

"Penalty-enhancement hate crime laws are traditionally justified on the grounds that, in Chief Justice Rehnquist's words, "this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Resolution affirmed.

Thanks to my opponent and readers.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
haha maybe. Don't know when though.
Posted by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
I'd love another go at this Mr. Fever lol How about it sometime?
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
Thanks for forwarding me the link, feverish :) This topic is near and dear to me, as it was a competitive debate resolution either last year or the year before...I don't remember which one.

Overall, I think that the pro has better coverage of arguments, and has, in general, more solid refutation. To be perfectly honest, I was a little disappointed in con's arguments, but only because there are so many great ones that can be applied through the due process and double jeopardy clauses of first world legal systems.

It is clearly unlawful (at least, within the structure of the US legal system) to impose hate crime enhancements. I have to get offline now, but if anyone is interested in the reasons why the imposition of hate crime enhancements is unconstitutional, let me know!
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
lmao
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
Thanks!
Shame you didn't accept that debate challenge though, could have been fun!

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
lol Jeez!!! You 2 are going at it!!! But ya, it is kinda weird that we can't delete comments.
Posted by mikebgood 8 years ago
mikebgood
Alright, honestly if this site let you delete your own comments I would have deleted the one where I called you a retard. So I apologize for the offense.
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
Oh, so now you want to talk nicely?

Once again please read the debate, you obviously have made a pre-judgement or just don't understand what I'm saying.
I've already debated this stuff with Snelld, but to respond to your points:

Proof is essential. Motive should be a vital concern in sentencing but never without tangible evidence.

A history of hating is not the issue.
Bob has not committed a hate crime as such if he has not specifically targeted someone from his hated group (gay men.)
If it really is a coincidence then no hate crime enhancement.
Bob is indeed clearly mentally unstable if he's committing this act completely randomly.
Special conditions would apply because of his unusual motive (or lack of motive) but they would not be hate crime enhancements.

"Also, what makes you think the person who is subject to the enhancement won't be even more irate towards the target group and simply go on a rampage when he gets out? In that case you would cause even more damage."

This argument only makes any sense if your accepting that these are extremely dangerous individuals because of their hateful motives, in which case it would still be preferable to detain them for longer in the interests of public safety.

All groups are protected, everyone does deserve equal protection.
If someone targets me because I'm white or you because your Christian, that is definitely a hate crime.

Please read the debate properly if you want to continue this discussion.
Thanks.
Posted by mikebgood 8 years ago
mikebgood
Its pointless to try to disseminate a person's motive beyond any tangible proof, and any conclusion you reach without it would be arbitrary.
HYPOTHETICAL
Bob has hated gay people for years. One day Bob is disgruntled and decides, "You know what, I'm just going to shoot the next person who walks through that door." Unbeknown to Bob the man happened to be gay. Does Bob go away for extra time? Even if you talked to everyone Bob knew and they confirmed that he hated gay people you still couldn't perceive that he was just pissed off and mentally unstable, and that was the real reason.
Also, what makes you think the person who is subject to the enhancement won't be even more irate towards the target group and simply go on a rampage when he gets out? In that case you would cause even more damage.
Additionally, what groups would you grant the position of being "protected" by the enhancement? I get the feeling that those who are part of the majority groups wouldn't get the extra "protection". But a hate group can be formed by any race, religion, etc.
What I'm trying to say is that everyone deserves equal protection under the law. As soon as you grant someone an advantage, even if it doesn't serve as one, you have subjected others to disadvantage. Besides this being wrong in principle it may cause harmful unintended consequences; such as an increase in violent crimes against lesser-protected groups since they are more apt targets.
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
Wow.
Nice comeback.
I heard you could get banned from this site for making personal comments, so I'll resist the temptation to respond in kind.

I'm glad you feel like a big man in front of your computer on the other side of the Atlantic.

Your witty comments have left me a broken man. <slashes wrists>

Goodbye cruel world.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
snelld7feverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
snelld7feverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
snelld7feverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by kevsext 8 years ago
kevsext
snelld7feverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33