The Instigator
hyperjunker
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
smiletrishalovesyou
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Hate crime enchantments are unjust in the United states

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,158 times Debate No: 3440
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (10)

 

hyperjunker

Pro

I Affirm. hate crime enchantments are unjust in the United states. To clarify the round I will give a few 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. Thus my value for this round is justice; I will go ahead and define justice as "Giving Each Their Due". Therefore, my burden in this debate is to show that Hate crime enhancements are not giving each their due in the United States. Since the resolution grammatically dictates itself as the absolute truth, and also because the definition of justice is giving EACH their due, all I need to prove is that hate crime enhancements don't give some people their due. My value criterion is maximizing justice.

First…

a)Hate crime enhancements violate constitutional rights. It has been argued by columnist Nat Hentoff that hate crime laws are unfair to the perpetrator for a number of reasons. First, they violate the prohibition against double jeopardy as protected by in the Fifth Amendment because the perpetrator could be possible tried twice for the same crime; once in state courts and another time in the federal courts. Second he states that they violate the defendant's fourth amendment privacy rights because prosecutors can dig through the records of their personal history if they are trying to prove that the crime was motivated by hate. Another reason that most scholars find hate crime laws to be unconstitutional is that they violate the first amendment, particularly freedom of speech and expression. And most importantly, one can argue that hate crime enhancements violate the fourteenth amendments guarantee of equality for all under the law. Tamara Roleff argues that hate crime laws give minorities special protection that goes against the founding father's belief that everyone is created equal.

b)Hate crimes are problematic because they punish criminals more harshly for their beliefs and not their acts. There is an insurmountable amount of literature that supports the idea that when bigots commit a crime that their penalty should only be for the act itself and not for the thought that might have led up to the act because a criminals motivation for committing a crime is irrelevant in providing them a harsher penalty. People who believe in this idea also agree that bigots, even if they lack integrity, are not criminals until they commit a crime based on their intolerance towards a person (Roleff). Therefore, this argument says that the United States government has no right to punish a person based on what they believe, read, or say. Because the court should not focus on the criminal's beliefs, Tamara Roleff argues that "By concentrating on the criminal's beliefs, the courts avoid focusing on the victims' rights, which should be the true aim of any judicial system."

c) All crimes should receive the same punishment. This is a simple argument that says that all crimes are motivated by hate because people do not commit acts of violence out of love. Take for example a robber who steals from the rich and gives to the poor. The robber has an inherent hatred towards rich people, which is a form of classism. Essentially, this position would say that there is no such thing as a crime that is less offensive or worse than another.

d)Currently legal system works, when determining causes of crimes, its on a foundation of "Beyond a reasonable doubt" You cant prove whether the crime was or not is a hate crime. Since there is absolutely no way to truly determine why someone committed an act, there will always be imperfections in the system. And because of this we are not giving each there due and there fore will not be fulfilling justice.

For all these reasons you should affirm...
smiletrishalovesyou

Con

Before I argue your points I've got to argue your sources. After reading your first paragraph I realized it looked strangely familiar. Then I realized that a good half of it was word for word from Wikipedia. I don't know if there's a law of ethics concerning whether it's okay to read straight from a debate someone else has already written but I just thought I'd point it out to anyone reading this argument that quite a portion of my opponent's opening speech was straight off Wikipedia.

Next sketchy source you used is Nat Hentoff. A columnist? I'm a columnist too. I write for the teen section of my local newspaper. I've written columns about the criminal justice system too. Should I be quoted in a debate? No. I'm 14 years old. I've no idea who Nat Hentoff is; he could be just like me for all I know.

Tamara Roleff. Wow, look what I just found out. You didn't even say what profession she was, so I decided to look her up. And I've just found your entire debate online, WORD FOR WORD, West Coast Publishing sound familiar to you?

Wow, okay, look, I thought you made some really great points in the opener and I was looking forward to arguing them. But obviously you've just gone and cut and paste everything. I could do the same, but sorry, I'm going to go ahead and forfeit upcoming rounds. I regret taking this debate now.

[Remember that if you could find an entire debate online, your opponent probably can too.]
Debate Round No. 1
hyperjunker

Pro

lol ermm actually this is not from wiki at all i didnt use wiki. Other than that you havent responded to my v or vc or contentions so i might as well extend them.
smiletrishalovesyou

Con

"lol ermm actually this is not from wiki at all i didnt use wiki. Other than that you havent responded to my v or vc or contentions so i might as well extend them."

wikipedia, debateapedia, it's all the same. i don't much care for responding to copy and pasted contentions so i'm just not going to, i quit. go ahead and extend if you want.

blocksclass.com/ddf/New%20Folder/HateCrimesPart1MarchApril08.doc
http://wiki.idebate.org...

if you're in debate class and trying to get someone to write contentions or whatever for you then just say so. this is like the ultimate cheat site, there's plenty of people willing to share information with you, dude that's what i do.

if you just felt like trying to look really smart or something i mean... that's pathetic.
Debate Round No. 2
hyperjunker

Pro

rofl this debate isnt getting any where but second of all i didnt get any of the crap from debate ANYTHING... god damn seriously ur really dumb.
smiletrishalovesyou

Con

oh my gee, honestly, are you still denying you didn't plagiarize a good portion of your speech? YOU'RE really dumb.
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by smiletrishalovesyou 9 years ago
smiletrishalovesyou
this is prtty late but i havent rlly gotten on this...

-can't rlly prove nething. didn't think i'd have to start a debate down on the comments area.
-yeah lol i'm buddhist, you're obviously not. buddhist church? um what?

i just think swastika + synogogue = not the nicest thing in the world. i have jewish friends that think the same thing. i don't have a nice official statistic, but if it offends one it can offend many more.
Posted by jackleripper 9 years ago
jackleripper
hyper, just to knock a hole in ur case, hate crime enhancmenets do not go into double jeopardy. Enhancements are tacked onto crimes after a jury conviction. So u'd really be better arguing it as failing due process, but not double jeopardy. i'm personally unbiased to the topic but i have to be cuz i'm running it at states. trisha, if u or anyone could tell me the time limit for doing rebuttals i'd gladly take the aff on this case. just send me an invite whenever. but i don't tend to have my laptop during the day so that's y idk if i'd have to like forfeit all of my rounds.
Posted by Darkmaff666 9 years ago
Darkmaff666
wow that must have been the most boring debate ive read
Posted by Cinammon1 9 years ago
Cinammon1
Hyperjunker u r really stupid to keep denying how dare you strike up a debate only to use plagerized info. Just fess up and ppl will leave u alone. I just googled wat u typed and it does come up. ur really stupid for doing it and not having the guts to admit it. ITS REALLY SAD!!!
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Hyperjunker,

You are hilarious. She accused you, then posted her source... where is the misunderstanding? Your argument is plagiarized... are you denying this? Listen Scooter, with the amount of access to the internet available to nearly every person in America what makes you think you can deny this and, oh... we'll just believe you?

You're 15, from San Diego, and you never heard of a 14 year old in high school??? Are you still in junior high???
Posted by josh_42 9 years ago
josh_42
is it just me or did the argument have nothing to with the topic for the most part?
Con wins though.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Yeah. Well, I'm not really attached to any culture or religion. My friends have just told me that I have philosophies that sound REALLY like Buddhism, even though I've never been in a buddhist church and my parents haven't ever taught me anything about it. But okay. I guess everyone sees things differently.

I will not "come on". Swastika+Synagogue to me does not mean "FU".

Most are? Please prove it. And you say that the person that was doing it was intending harm. Please prove THAT.

Oh and just so you know I didn't vote in the debate. Cause this wasn't a debate. More like a conversation. That didn't really conflict much at all. I'm not voting on PRO either cause he extended nothing in R3.
Posted by smiletrishalovesyou 9 years ago
smiletrishalovesyou
freshmen in high school = 14/15, where i live.
Posted by hyperjunker 9 years ago
hyperjunker
how are u 14 and are in high school?
Posted by smiletrishalovesyou 9 years ago
smiletrishalovesyou
yeah man i'm 14! um glad to make your point clear? don't underestimate the straightforwardness of highschool freshmen...?
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by krattyk10 9 years ago
krattyk10
hyperjunkersmiletrishalovesyouTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Darkmaff666 9 years ago
Darkmaff666
hyperjunkersmiletrishalovesyouTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
hyperjunkersmiletrishalovesyouTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by josh_42 9 years ago
josh_42
hyperjunkersmiletrishalovesyouTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
hyperjunkersmiletrishalovesyouTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by roycegee 9 years ago
roycegee
hyperjunkersmiletrishalovesyouTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by DrAlexander 9 years ago
DrAlexander
hyperjunkersmiletrishalovesyouTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
hyperjunkersmiletrishalovesyouTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
hyperjunkersmiletrishalovesyouTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by smiletrishalovesyou 9 years ago
smiletrishalovesyou
hyperjunkersmiletrishalovesyouTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03