The Instigator
justice_plate
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Grape
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

racism should be punished more than any other discrimination

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Grape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,882 times Debate No: 15125
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

justice_plate

Pro

Justifications for harsher punishments for hate crimes are right because they focus on the notion that hate crimes cause greater individual and societal harm. It is said that, when the core of a person's identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn, can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people. Furthermore, it is asserted that the chances for retaliatory crimes are greater when a hate crime has been committed.
Grape

Con

It is unclear whether Pro has argued that racism or hate crimes should be punished more harshly. They are not the same. Hate crimes are crimes committed because the victim is a member of a certain social group. Racism is obviously discrimination based on race.

Racism should not be punished more harshly than other forms of discrimination because it is not inherently worse. Discrimination based on sex, religion, sexual orientation, etc. is just as harmful as racism.

Hate crimes should not be punished more harshly because the motivation of a criminal in committing an intentional act is unimportant to serving justice and cannot be accurately ascertained. The purpose of justice ought to be to compensate the victim and deter additional crime. Punishing someone more because of why they committed their crime for a certain reason does not help achieve either of these goals.

It is also impossible to tell if a hate crime was actually socially motivated. In a diverse community, people may commit crimes against members of different social groups all the time. Are we to randomly assume some crimes are worse because of who they were committed against? We cannot look into a criminal's mind and find the truth, so we would be stabbing in the dark. That's not a fair system of justice.

My opponent's supporting points seem rather weak. The purpose of the law is not to protect people's feelings, it's to protect them from violent acts by others. The crimes themselves are already punished, so my opponent is effectively arguing for thought crimes (thinking the wrong thing will committing a crime). I think we can see why that is absolutely unjust.

I support the utmost fairness to the individual, not the unjustified use of legal force to control people's thoughts in the name of improving an abstract "society."
Debate Round No. 1
justice_plate

Pro

I argue that racist hate crimes are right to be punished the way they are and more harshly if possible
it is all about majorities and minorities. In america white people are the majority but black people, Latino people and Asians are not. The fact that they are manoritys means they are more likely to be targeted for attack.
White people are not usally attacked for being white because they are the majority in the country and non-white people are more likely to be attacked because they are minority.
think about it, people don't kill heterosexuals for their sexual orientation. However, there have been cases where homosexuals were killed for their sexual orientation. Christians make up the majority in the country - they are not targeted for their religion

People are not treated the same because we are NOT the same. People have different religions, people have different sexual orientations, people have different ethnicities, etc If we were treated the same, there would be no hate crime, In the world.
It is called Majority rules, majority rights

The reason i choose racism over sexism and homophobia is because woman are an equal majority to men and homosexuals are able to hide they're sexuality. People of different races cannot hide they're skin color so they are more important because they are more targeted for hate.
Grape

Con

My opponent has not justified why crimes committed by a majority against a minority are more damaging. It is the same crime and the same amount of damage needs to be repaid. The idea that the perpetrator had in mind is not the determining factor in decided what compensation is required. Compensation is based on damage.

My opponent is totally wrong in asserting that majorities cannot be persecuted. White people are persecuted for their race and there is discrimination against Christians. In South Africa, blacks were brutally oppressed though they were the majority. Where the crimes committed against them less significant because of this?

I see no reason to accept such "differences" between people where justice is concerned. A crime is a crime no matter what color someone is. I don't believe in majority rule and minority rights, I believe in rights for everyone.

My opponent is just inventing reasons to have racial discrimination. Women have not had equal power through history and homosexuals can hardly be expected to hide who they are. Not only does my opponent's system of justice not make sense, he is not able to apply it fairly.

I see no reason to punish discrimination over plain crimes. I certainly see no reason to consider some acts of discrimination more significant than others.
Debate Round No. 2
justice_plate

Pro

The thing about hate crimes and white men is that most white men don't live in substantiated fear of being murdered for their ethnicity, whereas black people can't even trust the cops. Very few white people are even threatened for being white because in america they are the majoritie. it is common logic everyone should relaise this.
the main point is minorities will always be weaker than majorities because they are smaller therefore minorities like black people and mexicans require more rights to make the majorities not hurt them because they are smaller and weaker. having equal rights cannot balance the fates of majorities and minorities.

if there is acrime against a rarer person and a smaller communtiy the crime should be doubly punished than that of a normal crime. and racism just happens to be the main catogory when this happens
it is all about majorities and minorities. It is called Majority rules, minoritie rights
Grape

Con

Pro continues his unsubstantiated conjecture and ignores all of my counter-examples, mindlessly restating his old arguments without adding anything to them.

I provided the example of South Africa to illustrate why what group is the minority and what group is the majority does not necessarily determine who is oppressed.

Pro is advocated that people be given special privileges if there are fewer people like them in a given area. Moral rules are supposed to be universal, not contingent on such irrelevant factors as what race people near you are.

He just randomly asserts that a hate crime should be doubly punished. Why? Does a person suffer doubly because of the motivation of their attacker?

Pro's idea of majority rule and minority rights has no justification. He has not provided us with any framework for establishing rights. There is nothing for me to refute. He hasn't even made it clear what the resolution really is.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by justice_plate 5 years ago
justice_plate
yes because sexism is less hurtful.
Posted by dinokiller 5 years ago
dinokiller
Rofl, so if i were to discriminate you because you're a woman, i get a smaller punishment?? -.-
Posted by Aaronroy 5 years ago
Aaronroy
I would like to say, racism is not illegal, so why would punishing someone for a racist violent crime be more severe than just the same violent crime? It's stupid; the punishment should be the same, regardless of race.

PRO also used false statistics. 80% of interracial crimes are black-on-white crimes, where the African-American was the offender, and the Caucasian was the victim.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
justice_plateGrapeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: `Pro continues his unsubstantiated conjecture and ignores all of my counter-examples, mindlessly restating his old arguments without adding anything to them. - indeed
Vote Placed by tvellalott 5 years ago
tvellalott
justice_plateGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dominated; his counter-arguments were completely unrebutted. I also noticed several spelling mistakes from Pro.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 5 years ago
boredinclass
justice_plateGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: con went unanswered, also, isn't this discrimination?