sample affirmative cases for the hate crime enhancement resolution

Intrepid reader okiedebater has offered up some shell cases for consideration and critique. They're blockquoted; my comments follow each one. As always, your thoughts are appreciated.

(Part II, the negative cases, here.)

Affirmative #1:
V: Justice
Cr: Equal Treatment under the Law ("all men are created equal" and 14th Amendment relates to "in the United States")

C1: Hate crimes are inadequately defined
-no consensus (shown by differing laws between states, federal gov't...)
-would be either too broad or too narrow (either all crimes will qualify, or there will be many unprotected minorities)
-they are vague (leaving a loophole for prosecutorial abuse, shown in C3)

C2: Motive can't be proven sufficiently to support hate crime enhancements
-even if the defendant showed prejudice in the past, that doesn't mean the actual crime was motivated by prejudice
-even if the criminal yelled derogatory words during the crime, even that doesn't necessarily indicate prejudice, just anger

C3: Hate crime enhancements are used unjustly
-as a result of the difficult burden of proof in C2, prosecutors don't always use HCE, even when applicable, thereby violating my Cr. of Equal Treatment
-HCE are used disproportionately against minorities, indicated that they may have become a tool for prejudiced people, rather than a deterrent

I like this case because it has a clear standard for justice that is both universal--equal treatment under the law isn't just an American concept--but also strongly linked to Constitutional rights. Contention 1 can be easily demonstrated, and would be sufficient to affirm.

I see some potential problems, though:
1. C2 can be rebutted by noting that the law requires proof of intent beyond a reasonable doubt, which means that enhancements aren't going to be applied arbitrarily or without warrant.
2. C3 requires access to specific empirical evidence. (As luck would have it, you can find a starting point on this blog.)
3. Is there a higher standard of justice? For example, even an oppressive law can be applied equally. Also, define "equal."

Affirmative #2
V: Justice
Cr: John Locke (government is established to protect the rights of its citizens)

C1: Hate crime enhancements are unnecessary
-regular punishment is sufficient to protect the rights of citizens because punishment, even without HCE, increases to reflect the severity of the crime

C2: Hate crime enhancements are ineffective
-they have not shown any significant deterrent effect
-they are even used to disproportionately to prosecute minorities (which they are apparently made to protect)

C3: Hate crime enhancements are used unjustly
-they are not always applied, even when they are applicable
-they do increase the amount of punishment in an unjust way (Even if a hate crime is worse, does it merit doubling punishment? Also, could we really determine how MUCH worse a hate crime is?)

Some interesting issues here.

1. If we're using Locke, we have to make C3 our strongest point, showing how HCEs give the government arbitrary power, which is anathema to Locke.

2. C1 and C2 could be combined.

3. Subpoint 2 under C2 should go under C3 instead. Subpoint 1 isn't intuitively resolutional--ineffective things aren't unjust, just ineffective. The Aff would have to show that the government is somehow failing in its obligation to protect citizens--which wouldn't square with C1, which purports that our current system is already working. Then what's the harm of C3? Hmm... Gotta square these away.

As an aside, all Affirmatives should look into the evidence that HCEs disproportionately target minorities, since they're drawn up in ways that protect race (or gender, etc.) as a category. The "HCEs protect minorities" argument was quite popular at the last tournament I judged, but could have been defeated quite easily.