Possible Observations:I like the first; the Aff has to show a systemic or inherent problem. Affs take note about Wisconsin v. Mitchell: it's not entirely settled, since the primary question was 1st amendment rights, and secondarily proportionality; the Court did not address "equal protection" under the 14th amendment. The last observation, you would think, is unnecessary. But some Affs are weasely. My five word rebuttal for any Aff running that silly "all crimes are hate crimes" canard: "Jaywalking isn't a hate crime."
-occasional abuse of hate crime enhancements is insufficient to label them unjust. We must examine hate crime enhancements as a whole, instead of judging a rule by the exceptions.
-Hate crime enhancements are both legal and constitutional (Wisconsin v. Mitchell)
-Not all crimes are hate crimes (this came up several rounds that I've seen)
Negative #1A solid argument if you can support it. The Aff's potential responses:
C1: Hate crimes are worse than parallel crimes
-often brutal and depraved
-cause more harm to the community and overall society
C2: HCE recognize the more dangerous nature of hate crimes and increase punishment accordingly
1. Hate crime laws are overinclusive, and often punish offenders additionally, without warrant. See here.
2. What counts as a "parallel crime?" For instance, which is more terrifying: a hate crime or a random shooting? Should we include murder-for-hire in this calculus? Which one causes more fear in a community? Are they "parallel?"
Negative #2The question for the Lockean: do the added protections of hate crimes, even if they can be proved, avoid giving the government additional unwarranted or arbitrary power?
Cr: John Locke (the gov't must protect the right of its citizens)
C1: Hate crime enhancements allow government to better protect its citizens
-increases protection for those who most need it (those who are most likely to be targeted because of a characteristic)
-this allows the government to restore a kind of equal playing field among citizens (response to an Affirmative argument about Equality)
C2: Hate crimes are more harmful to rights to than parallel crimes
-increase chances of vengeful violence
-emotional/psychological harm to the community
-->b/c hate crimes are worse, it is only just that the punishment be increased in order to 1) try to prevent them from re-occurring (deterrence), 2) incapacitate the more dangerous offender (due the potential number of victims) for a longer period of time (incapacitation), and 3) hopefully stem any potential vengeful violence from the victimized community
Negative #3Wisconsin v. MItchell primarily deflected a "chilling effect on free speech" argument, and sicondarily reasoned that the added harms of HCEs justified additional punishment. With a criterion of constitutionality, make it two contentions:
Cr: Just Punishment (under Constitution, or law, or something that includes that the punishment should fit the crime)
C1: Hate crime enhancements are constitutional
-shown in Wisconsin v. Mitchell
C2: Hate crime enhancements allow the punishment to fit the crime
-hate crimes are worse than parallel crimes
-regular laws can't punish sufficiently given this different
---> HCE allow more punishment, making it fit the crime
1. They're constitutional on 1st amendment grounds.
2. They're constitutionally proportional.
And, of course, the Negative had better be ready to defend constitutionality as a criterion, given its fluid nature.