I affirm the resolution: That Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States
Defintions : Hate Crimes: a crime moviated by a degree of prejudice.
The value for this round will be Justice , which is defined as giving each thier due. This will be the most important for the round because its implicit in the resolution.
The criterion for the round will be that of improving Social Policy. Social Policy can be which can be defined as to improve human walfare and human needs , education for health , housing , and social security. Or in U.S. politics , social policy is aimed to general moraltiy.
Social policy can be improved by making an positive impact on a child's conduct , by 1) improving a child's development in disadvantaged families, and 2) to have a broad impact on a childs functioning 3) since hate is a psychologicial it should be eliminated by psychologicial reverse of showing how discrimnation is bad and unjust rather than punishment. ( Jack Levon)
John Stuart Mill states : Socialization by families , relegious organizations and schools is reasonably effectiveto limit conduct, such as inflicting cruelty, and regulating such conduct by criminal law may intrude on protected liberties.
Contention 1 : hate crime laws are vague.
sub point A : Not all minoritys are taken into account.
There are no existing federal hate crime laws in the United States that encompass sexual orientation , gender identity, and disablilty.
James B Jacobs and Kimberly Potter then state that;
The politics of hate crime legislation has touched off angry charges of hypocrisy and insensitivity. Instead of uniting us in the war against crime, they have provided one more thing to argue about.
sub point B : hate can't be scaled to degrees.
There's no possible way to determine the amount of hate in a crime. Even if hate was present and witness , at the scene of the crime , noone , but the defendant can know and determine the amount of hate...