This year, the regionals/state LD Debate resolution was about Hate Crime enhancements. Essentially what happens is, when you commit a hate crime, you get a higher sentence than normal. For example, one person may only assault/battery African Americans, and they can be punished more severely than someone who assaulted just random people.

So the question is simple: when does a crime become a hate crime, and should we enhance the punishment?

I honestly can't see why that's even being considered, it's kind of unfair to the "random victims".
Plus unless there's multiple people, how can they even tell if it was actually anything to do with racism, or whether the african american was just a "random person".
So no, punishment should be the same undependant on the race/religion of the victim.

It's a flawed idea from the start. You're starting to put degrees on a crime. How is assault any different committed by a white man on a white man than a white man on a black man?

To brutalise a rather apt Milton Friedman quote: "A society that puts equality ahead of freedom will end up with neither" - A society that puts equality ahead of justice will end up with neither. Certainly if you consider the current levels of crime reporting versus successful prosecution; how long until the standard defence at a court will simply be "It wasn't a hate crime"?

Hate crime is bad, but then again, you shouldn't give someone a higher fine because they had violence against a different race. Could be different reasons than racial/ethnic/religious reasons.

It's not any worse than a normal crime.

Hate crimes are bull...It just adds to the mindset that people are different because of race, religion, etc. A person, no matter what race, is still equal to any other person.

I think if somebody says that they hate a certain race of people and then go around killing people of that race then it is a hate crime,and should be punished more severely.But if someone who has never said or implied that they hate a certain race and kill somebody who is of a different racial background then them it should not be construed as a hate crime

So i guess what im saying is,yes they should be charged more severerly

Why?
Someone could tell someone else that they liked them, then kill them.
Someone could tell someone else that they hated them, then kill them.
Someone could tell someone else that they hated their race, then kill them.
What's the difference?
A murder is a murder.

I can see why they are asking this, but I think the answer should be no.

Hate crimes don't just include murder. For example, should someone who painted a swastika on a public area get more of a punishment than someone who just painted graffitti?

The idea of hate crimes is reflective of some of the fact that outdated laws exist (legal nostalgia ).

Should someone who painted a swastika on a public area get more of a punishment than someone who just painted graffiti?

No. The offender should be charged under the that laws that are against the ruination of public property and under the anti-racism laws.

New Australian laws have been brought in for World Youth Day, a large Christian festival that is taking place soon in Sydney. These laws are stopping 'nuisances from occurring'. Critics are not impressed by the laws, claiming that they are far too strict, because they are less forgiving than the laws that were brought in for the APEC meetings. For example, people who expose themselves in public are fined $1100 dollars, in contrast however,under these new laws a person who wears an anti-Christian t-shirt is fined upwards of $5500 dollars. As such it can be seen that a crime becomes a hate crime when people who hold control of such legal proceedings see it fit to designate certain actions as 'hate crimes' and as for your second question Zhou; the Australian Government sees it fit to enhance the punishment, well, whenever they please!