Card of the Week
March 21, 2008
NFL Con by Robert Reeves
The resolution is asking whether or not hate crime enhancements, not merely hate crimes, are unjust. Hate crime enhancements are sentencing guidelines, meaning that stiffer penalties can be placed on one convicted of a hate crime. A common argument against hate crimes is that they punish people for their intent rather than their actions; however, this analysis misses a key point. Intent without action is not illegal, and almost all crimes have intent based punishments.
Intent, according to Black's Law Dictionary Seventh Edition, means "the state of mind accompanying an act." Proving intent is often the most difficult part of a criminal prosecution, for any crime. Courts must analyze actions and words, hear witness testimony, and even let defendants explain themselves. While perhaps difficult, intent is not impossible to prove using the methods just described.
For example, there are many different types of homicide. Manslaughter in various degrees and murder in various degrees carry different sentences even though the guilty party is still responsible for the same action. Should everyone responsible for the death of another person be sentenced in the same way, regardless of intent? Less sensationally, fraud, assault, possession of a controlled substance, and an entire host of other felonies and misdemeanors also carry intent based enhancements. If intent were as difficult to discern as the Aff will have you believe, then entire criminal justice system would be utterly ineffective at convicting those guilty of crimes.
Another common argument against hate crime enhancements is that they are unjust because the enhancements violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. However, equal protection really means that the law must be applied, or administered, equally and fairly to all and not discriminate, or disenfranchise, a specific group. Unjust, according to Black's Law Dictionary, means contrary to justice. Justice in a legal sense, deals with the "the fair and proper administration of the law." (Black's)
Consider the Federal Criminal Code sentencing guidelines on hate crime:
§3A1.1.(a)
"If the finder of fact at trial or, in the case of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court at sentencing determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person, increase by 3 levels."
Hate crimes enhancements are not designed to be unfairly applied to any specific group, but rather they provide protection equally for all.
Hate crime enhancement laws can be and are administered equally to all. Sentences prescribed by law are administered on the trial level, and the sentences cannot be applied without a conviction. Furthermore, a conviction, in these cases, is not possible without the prosecution meeting their burden to prove intent. And because intent is a provable and legitimate element of a crime, all of the procedural and substantive safeguards afforded by the Constitution to all citizens accused of a crime are still intact.
What, then, makes hate crime enhancements uniquely unjust in comparison with all other intent based enhancements? The fact that all groups have equal justice under the law, both as victims and defendants, means these enhancements are, in fact, just.
Robert is a senior at Louisiana Tech University majoring in Political Science and History.
March 14, 2008
NFL Con
Regarding the issue of justice, an Affirmative might argue that the concept of retributive justice should be applied in this case. Retributive justice dictates that actions and consequences should be proportionately equal. The following argument does not dispute the idea of retributive justice. Instead, it argues that hate crimes inflict more individual and societal harms than crimes that are not bias-motivated. Therefore, hate crime enhancements are justified, in accordance with retributive justice, because the harm inflicted was greater as well. In the words of the famed English jurist Sir William Blackstone, "it is but reasonable that, among crimes of different natures, those should be most severely punished which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness."
Hate crimes are more likely to incite retaliation from opposition groups, which contributes negatively to relations between social groups. Furthermore, hate crimes, which are oftentimes fueled by emotions, also inflict emotional damage on a victim that is immeasurable and can even extend to other members of a social group. The recent national attention given to Louisiana during the unraveling of the Jena Six trials illustrates this aspect. The appearance of multiple nooses in the schoolyard did not physically hurt any individual, but it was emotionally offensive to most African-Americans.
According to the United States Department of Justice, the harm imposed by a crime is greater when it attacks an individual's identity. The degradation experienced is particularly severe and can result in future emotional problems. Since this harm can be experienced by more than just the victim in a crime, the impact is exponential. When this impact is extended to entire groups, society no longer retains the recognition of self-worth for all social groups, leading to violence and retaliation that destabilizes society as a whole. In fact, the Department of Justice attributes the Los Angeles riots of 1992 to the disempowerment of African-Americans following the acquittal of four Caucasian police officers that had been caught on video beating an African-American man, Rodney King, following a high speed car chase.
Probably the most prominent example justifying hate crime enhancements was the Wisconsin vs. Mitchell case, decided in 1993 by the United States Supreme Court. In the case, Todd Mitchell, an African-American man, was accused of aggravated battery and given a heavier sentence because he chose his victim, a fourteen year-old Caucasian boy by the name of Gregory Reddick, due to the victim's race. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the issue of race could not be used in determining the penalty because it punished Mitchell for offensive thought, which is protected under the First Amendment's protection of the freedom of expression. However, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Wisconsin Court's decision, citing that it could enhance penalties because the Wisconsin Supreme Court had an interest in preventing societal unrest and any possible secondary crimes that could be committed in retaliation to Mitchell's actions. In other words, harsher punishment for hate crimes is justified because it can offset the other societal harms caused by the action.
When hate crimes are committed, the impact touches more than just the victims. Instead, the outcome can harm other individuals of a social group or society in general. It is necessary to implement punishment that would be equal to the amount of harm a hate crime causes. Consequently, hate crime enhancements do not violate the principle of retributive justice and should be used to address such actions.
March 7, 2008
UIL Con by Heidi Sommer
A sanctuary city is a United States city that follows certain practices that protect immigrants, including illegal immigrants. The city can be considered a sanctuary for illegal immigrants who wish to avoid deportation; in short, such a city does not enforce immigration law.
Despite a 1996 federal law, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, that requires local governments to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), many large urban cities have adopted so-called "sanctuary policies." Generally, sanctuary policies instruct city employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of illegal aliens living in their communities. The policies also end the distinction between legal and illegal immigration--so illegal aliens often benefit from city services too. Critics believe that proponents of sanctuary policies, particularly local public servants in sanctuary cities, may be led to assume that Hispanic voters with American citizenship will support them in elections if it is perceived that they support policies that help Hispanics of any citizenship.
The U.S. Constitution does not have a provision for immigration sanctuary, and there is no legal precedent for it in the history of the United States of America. Despite the affirmation that sanctuary cities may help deter crime, they also pose a significant threat both to national security and to the economy. The fundamental role of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. Loose immigration policy most especially manifested in "sanctuary policies" may and in many instances does adversely affect this role. To give an example, Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 terrorists, was stopped several times for traffic violations but his immigration status was not checked. If it had been, almost 3,000 people who perished that day might be alive today. Indeed, 30 percent of our federal prison population are illegal aliens and more than half of them have committed multiple crimes. The reality is that most of them will be released on American streets to commit more crimes. Ultimately, it is the American taxpayers who fund this phenomenon. In terms of economic policy, sanctuary cities demand federal money to subsidize education, environmental damage repair, more and more water treatment plants, police and fire protection, social handouts, and welfare benefits required by the growing ghost population of illegal aliens.
Although sanctuary cities may help to temporarily reduce crime, in the long term it invites more occasions for crime to be committed by those who have not embraced American citizenship and its subsequent responsibilities. Morally, law should be upheld first and foremost. The safety and wellbeing of those citizens who have embraced the responsibilities of citizenship, should not be put at risk by those who have not. The American legacy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness may be put in jeopardy with such flippant disregard for law and order in society and ultimately American lives may have to pay the price.
February 28, 2008
NFL Con by Alan Lin
This resolution leaves the scope of the argument relatively open. For example, what constitutes a military threat? If one defines military threat as having the ability to impose harm through military actions, then multiple nations have that capability, many of whom already possess nuclear weapons. However, preemptive action by the United States would certainly not be just since most of these nations do not have intent to harm. If a Negative is able to define military threat broadly, then the arguments presented below will be even stronger.
The concept of justice can be linked to the theory of social contract. Even though Locke applied his theory to general society, it is possible to augment the scope of his theory to include the relatively recent phenomenon of international justice. This implication inevitably leads us to the question of sovereignty versus international governance of a nation's actions. While an Affirmative might question the power that some international institutions hold, it is precisely a country's participation in an international agreement that gives it authority.
According to UCLA Law Professor Kal Raustiala, "expressed consent is the traditional basis for international law" and "international institutions derive their power from the explicit consent of contracting states." Put differently, international agreements represent a kind of international contract that each nation signs with others. In other words, nations are the equivalent of people in John Locke's state of nature. The United States has voluntarily entered into an agreement with the UN in signing the Charter in 1945 that includes the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which outlines the situations and processes by which the use of force is appropriate. Consequently, any sort of preemptive military measure taken by the United States would be a direct violation of the Pact and to the contract that the country entered into when it signed the UN Charter. To argue that preemptive military force is a just act would be to approve the violation of this international contract.
Another aspect of this resolution points to the ends-means argument. Preemptive action always runs the risk of errors in intelligence and calculations of a threat. The current situation in Iraq presents a prime example of such an occurrence. The purpose of the war quickly turned from preventing Iraq from using its stock of weapons of mass destruction to liberation of the Iraqi people once it was discovered that U.S. intelligence had greatly overestimated the Iraqi threat. Regardless, numerous people have suffered from this campaign in the Middle East, Iraqi and American. While it is difficult to judge the final outcome of this conflict, it does present a strong argument against the use of preemptive action. When people lose their right to life as a result of an error, it is irrevocable and difficult to justify.
Military action is a contentious issue simply because it implies that harm will be done. When inalienable rights of the innocent are placed in the path of conflict, it is inevitable that some will suffer. Coupled with the social contract logic behind international agreements, it is difficult to conclude that preemptive action by the United States in this situation would be just.
February 15, 2008
NFL Pro by Matt Baumann
The January/February NFL topic asks Affirmatives to defend the use of military force against would-be nuclear aggressors. But no where in the resolution is it indicated that the United States must or must not use its own nuclear weapons. The affirmative does not necessarily have to argue that nuclear weapons are bad or that the United States should not have nuclear weapons. The specific question is the use of military force by the United States against nations developing nuclear weapons.
Because of this, an Affirmative might offer two observations to set the parameters of the debate. First, there is no reason that the United States cannot also decrease the number of nuclear weapons it has while affirming the resolution. Second, there is nothing in the resolution preventing the United States to first seek any and all diplomatic alternatives, both unilaterally and multilaterally, reserving military force as a last resort.
On the first point, there is nothing preventing the United States from also decreasing its own nuclear weapons stockpile. Many negatives argue that the United States sees itself as part of an elite group of nations able to enjoy nuclear weaponry. But it is perfectly within affirmative ability to completely reject this notion. It is perfectly within affirmative boundaries to argue that the United States could decrease its nuclear weapons. Notice, however, I am not suggesting Affirmatives run a policy debate case where we disarm. Instead, this observation can be placed into the debate to limit discussion to U.S. military action.
Second, there is no reason to believe that the United States could not first exhaust all other alternatives before military intervention. The Negative story is often that under the Affirmative, the United States will act as a world police with not international oversight. But there is nothing in the resolution suggesting that the Affirmative has to act in defiance to international consensus! Advocating that force be used as a last resort is perfectly compatible with an Affirmative position. Again, I am not advocating an affirmative policy-based case to enter negotiations or use international institutions. Rather, I am suggesting that the Affirmative stick to the question posed by the resolution.
These two observations alone will not win you the round. They serve only to narrow the focus on the debate to what is topically relevant. But it is much easier to justify military force when (1) the United States is disarming and (2) all other options have been exhausted.
February 1, 2008
NFL Con
Although many compelling arguments exist in favor of U.S. military force to prevent dangerous nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, there are still other arguments and factors to consider in opposition to this belief.
On a very basic level, the use of military force on the part of the U.S. simply turns America into a police-state bent on imposing its law of order on other nations. Ultimately, the complaint against America would be its insistent use of uni-lateral force without consultation among the rest of the world community.
Options other than military force exist. These options include the body of the United Nations which has been set up as a reckoning force for rogue nations and others who desire nuclear technology for non-peaceful purposes. The specific agency is called the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) a watch-dog group for the proliferation of nuclear weapons and keeper of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This agency seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to inhibit its use for military purposes. It was established as an autonomous organization on July 29, 1957. In 1953, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower envisioned the creation of this international body to control and develop the use of atomic energy, in his "Atoms for Peace" speech before the UN General Assembly.
A recent example of the United States' desire to use military force is in the case of Iran. There have been many difficulties in the attempts to assure that Iran does not acquire enough nuclear technology and resources to produce nuclear weapons. The United States under President George W. Bush has consistently asserted that military force may and will be used in the event that Iran continues to develop such technology. Currently, however, with the assistance of the IAEA under Mohammed ElBaradei, such military action is strongly condemned. On September 7, 2007, he explicitly argued against military action, saying: "We have not seen any weaponization of their program, nor have we received any information to that effect - no smoking gun or information from intelligence. Based on the evidence we have, we do not see ... a clear and present danger that requires that you go beyond diplomacy." Diplomacy, then, is the ultimate key to preventing nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands. Preemptive action often times results in needless loss of life.
Many believe that force will only be countered with force. The message sent to the rest of the world when military force is used often results in the perception that the United States is a state bent on asserting its own without the will to discuss or hold dialogue before taking lives in the process of asserting its interests.
January 25, 2008
UIL Con
According to Locke, humans sought to form society in order to leave the state of nature. Society could then protect the natural rights of individuals through laws and order. However, the sanctuary policies of many cities in the United States have prevented this from happening. When law enforcement is unable to perform certain actions, it inhibits their ability to protect the rights of legal immigrants and citizens in the United States. Most frequently, this occurs when crimes are committed by illegal immigrants.
In 2002, four illegal immigrants were involved in a brutal rape in New York City. The four individuals had previously been in police custody and were released without notifying immigration officials who could have started deportation proceedings. This was the direct result of sanctuary policies in New York City, which prevented police from making any notification to immigration officials. Outrage over the incident led Mayor Bloomberg to repeal the policy on executive order, but it returned shortly thereafter. In this situation, sanctuary policies protected the illegal aliens, who were breaking the law, but failed to guard the rights of the rape victim, a mother of two.
In Los Angeles, police officers are not allowed to arrest an individual even if it is known that he/she is an illegal immigrant. Law enforcement cannot do anything until the individual commits a crime. This is a severe threat to citizens and other legal immigrants, given the number of dangerous, foreign gangs that operate in the United States.
At the beginning of 2004, it was noted that several members of a notorious Salvadoran gang, Mara Salvatrucha, had returned to Los Angeles after being deported for crimes such as murder and drug trafficking. The National Drug Intelligence Center, a division of the Justice Department, estimates that there are approximately 10,000 Mara Salvatrucha members in the United States currently. Their activities in the United States include drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, robbery, and murder. Additionally, many members are wanted for crimes committed in several Central American countries. Mara Salvatrucha members have approved the killing of police officers and have even threatened people involved in the Minuteman Project, which is a group of civilians that want to reduce illegal immigration through patrols along the border. Yet, these illegal alien criminals are allowed to operate freely in the United States until they are caught in the act of another crime. Thus, by the time they are arrested again, they will have already infringed upon the rights of another person. This is hardly morally justifiable since law enforcement must wait until other persons' rights are violated before taking action.
The crimes committed by illegal aliens, such as the Mara Salvatrucha gang, should make it clear that sanctuary city policies cannot be morally justified because they infringe upon the rights of legal immigrants and citizens in the United States. The threat to public safety posed by illegal aliens makes it hard to validate these policies. John Locke espoused the idea of natural rights for individuals, but he also argued that humans escaped the natural state to form a society so that it could protect their natural rights from infringement. When police and law enforcement officials are unable to inquire or act upon the immigration status of individuals, these illegal immigrants are not only breaking the law by being in the United States illegally, but are also a threat to public safety and those here legally. Consequently, sanctuary policies cannot be morally justified since they place the natural rights of citizens at risk.
January 18, 2008
UIL Pro
Inalienable Rights of Illegal Aliens
When Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal" and that they "are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," he was making a moral statement. He was essentially saying that to infringe upon these principles, and the rights that they define, would be an act of injustice. Illegal aliens have rights too, at least human rights, and to deprive them of such is unjust. There is something inalienable about the aliens themselves. Debaters arguing the 2008 UIL LD topic would be wise to use this standard to judge the morality of sanctuary cities.
A sanctuary city is a jurisdiction that either directly or indirectly discourages its police officers and other municipal workers from actively seeking to identify or report illegal aliens seeking healthcare, enrolling their children in school, or cooperating in criminal investigations. Sanctuary policies are directly imposed through state laws, ordinances, executive orders and department policies, and indirectly accomplished through promoting a workplace culture that encourages city employees not to betray this information. Immigrant status only becomes important for prosecuting criminals who are themselves illegal aliens and might harm others.
Strategy One: get technical. Sanctuary cities exist for a reason, and from a legal standpoint it is the difference between civil and criminal offenses. States generally have legal authority over enforcing the criminal aspects of immigration law (i.e. smuggling illegal aliens), but only federal officers have jurisdiction over the civil offenses (i.e. living in the U.S. illegally). It could be argued that it would be illegal, under current federal law, for states to enforce all immigration laws; and what is illegal is usually immoral. Thus, to do otherwise than allow sanctuary cities could in effect qualify as morally unjustifiable.
Strategy Two: get sentimental. An appeal to the emotions is not always the most honest approach when it is meant to deceive, but in this case sentiment is warranted. Lawmakers and Academicians (policy debaters included) do not always understand the personal struggle an illegal alien experiences. They are human beings after all, and not some numbers on the page of a bureaucratic report.
Many government officials believe that illegal aliens will not report crimes, seek healthcare or send their kids to school if they are threatened with being turned in and eventually deported. Depriving illegal aliens of these services could be perceived as violating their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Who would want to deprive the child of an illegal alien, who is not guilty for his parents' crime, access to basic education? Or think of the public health consequences of an illegal alien that infects others because he does not receive the treatment he needs.
The question we must ask ourselves is not whether sanctuary cities are morally justified, but whether outlawing them is. Theoretically it may sound great to enforce our immigration laws at every level of government, but as these examples show, it is definitely not always legal, practical or moral.
January 11, 2008
NFL Pro
Irresponsible Leaders Undermine Nuclear Deterrence
Nuclear peace may not be as certain as some scholars suggest. Nuclear deterrence theory is built on the premise that nuclear nations will show restraint in using their nuclear weapons because of the possibility of a massive retaliatory strike. The theory posits that states will exert tight central control over nuclear weapons to avoid accidents and be more likely to use direct communication to defuse threats that could lead to inadvertent escalation.
For some, the Cold War is the perfect illustration of deterrence theory. The fear of nuclear destruction, it appears, kept the Cold War from turning into a hot war. Scott Sagan, Professor of Political Science and Co-director of the Center for International Security Cooperation at Stanford University, argues that, in reality, the Cold War was filled with hair raising close calls that prove that deterrence may not be as infallible as many assume.
One such incident occurred in 1969 when President Nixon placed American forces on high alert. After six months of making little progress in Vietnam, Nixon approved a series of increased alert measures to coerce the Soviets into ending the war in Vietnam. These measures included halting all aircraft combat training missions, increasing the number of armed B-52 bombers on alert and a "show of force" in which B-52s flew from the United States to the Soviet Union and back. He wanted to appear irrational and unpredictable, as if he would do anything, including risk a nuclear war, to end the conflict.
While Nixon wanted to make sure the Soviet leaders heard the signal loud and clear, he wanted to keep the American public unaware of the operation. As a result, military commanders were told as little as possible. As Sagan notes, problems can arise in managing military signals when the president's penchant for security is so high that the U.S. commanders implementing the action are only able to guess at its basic purpose. One problem occurred when several B-52 bombers flew without the use of ground based navigation. Similar flights had produced an incident when a B-52 accidentally strayed into the Soviet Union's air defense warning net-a fact not known to Washington officials in 1969 who approved the new operation.
In the end, the Soviets did not respond to the alert as Nixon desired. Because the information is not available to the public, we cannot be sure how the Soviets interpreted the 1969 alert, but confusion over its purpose would certainly be understandable. The specifics of the operation would not lead an objective observer to focus on Vietnam. As Sagan points out, ironically, Nixon and Kissinger appear to have assumed that the Soviet leadership would rationally analyze and clearly understand the strategic signal sent by a president who wanted to be seen as so irrational that he would do anything to end the war in Vietnam.
This event reveals a disturbing picture of the U.S. government's decision making concerning nuclear weapons. While, many scholars speak of the danger of rogue states acting irrationally or exploiting their military power for political purposes, the 1969 alert shows that even leaders in democratic nations can behave irresponsibly with nuclear weapons. Because of this, there is a continuing need to discourage potential nuclear states from acquiring their own nuclear weapons and encourage states with nuclear weapons to disarm.
Source: Scott Sagan and Jeremi Suri, "The Madman Nuclear Alert," International Security, Vol. 27 No. 4.