Arguments for hate crime laws

Justifications for harsher punishments for hate crimes focus on the notion that hate crimes cause greater individual and societal harm. In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously found that "bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest.... The State's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, '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.'"[20] It is said that, when the core of a person’s identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn, can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people. Furthermore, it is asserted that the chances for retaliatory crimes are greater when a hate crime has been committed. The riots in Los Angeles, California, that followed the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist, by a group of White police officers are cited as support for this argument.[21]
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment.[20]
When it enacted the Hate Crimes Act of 2000, the New York State Legislature found that:
Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity." [22]

Arguments in opposition to hate crime laws

Arguments against hate crime legislation include the following:
Perpetrators of the same criminal act should not be treated differently because they hold different beliefs or motives.[23]
Over time, these provisions might be disregarded and hate crime laws and associated case law could evolve to the point where speaking out strongly against a particular group or its actions could be construed as a libelous hate crime, violating rights to freedom of expression, thought, religion (among others).[24]
Penalities that do not include hate-crimes enhancement are already sufficient, in that vandalism, assault and murder have always been illegal and subject to prosecution. The fact that they still occur does not justify infringing on the freedoms of speech and religion.[25]
It brings the law into disrepute and further divides society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced.[26]
Religious practices will become subject to government regulation, violating the separation of church and state.[27]
Allowing a self-declared victim to decide if a crime has occurred violates the principle of objective justice.[28]

Everything that can and will be said about this issue has been said - repeatedly.

One is on side of the fence or the other.

I don't believe anybody is going to change their opinions on this. I stand firmly on the side of protecting society against bigotry and prejudice. Others stand firmly on the side of protecting criminals from "excessive" sentencing. We will never agree on this point.