A hate crime is a crime that was motivated by a preexisting prejudice against something such as race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, etc. Under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, felonies that are deemed to be "hate crimes" are required to be punished more severely. This screams, "Thoughtcrime." The very basis behind the creation and enforcement of laws is to protect people's rights. One of the state's jobs is the retribution of those that violate others' rights, which is signified by breaking a (just) law. Let's think of it this way... Robbery is a felony. There are three classes of robbery -- First Degree, Second Degree, and Third Degree. Third degree is pretty simple. If you use an object to threaten someone so that you can steal something from them, that's third degree. However, if you use a gun or a knife, it elevates you to second degree. Second degree is also the starting line for auto theft. If you injure someone, you're elevated to first degree. In some states, since this is only a general overview of nationwide policies, the mere presence of a gun during the robbery automatically elevates you to first degree. Why is this bit important? Higher degrees of robbery, with first degree being the highest, are punished more severely. This makes sense, since it's justified to enact a harsher punishment on a more heinous violation of another's rights. In this case, merely threatening someone and taking their stuff is a violation. Pointing a gun at them (which is assault, by the way) and [i]then[/i] taking their stuff is more heinous, since you've not only deprived them of their property, but also endangered their life as well. Since the crime was more heinous, you get a more severe punishment. Now, motive alone cannot violate somebody's rights. I can fantasize about killing people all day, but I'm still an innocent man. There's a dangerous precedent set by enacting harsher penalties because of motive. It's not consistent with the idea that laws protect rights, or that violators must be punished to a degree representative of the degree of the crime. Go back to the bit about robbery. If I assault somebody (pointing a gun at them) [i]and[/i] steal from them, I'm looking at a likely ten extra years in prison. The amount of extra time that should be served is debatable, but it makes sense that I serve more time for violating more rights. That's the basis of retribution and law enforcement in the free world. Now, we've established that hate crimes are punished more severely. Hypothetically, if I attack somebody I am going to serve time. But if the court finds that I was motivated by prejudice towards one of the aforementioned categories, then I get to serve even more time. This means one of two things. Either... 1) We as a society are arbitrary in our justice, and use law enforcement and retribution without regard to its just application or its basis. Or... 2) We as a society, for some reason, believe that people have a right to not have prejudiced thoughts targeted at them. Both choices are bad. 1 means that we need to seriously reevaluate our idea of justice. 2 means that we need to reevaluate our idea of what a "right" is. If you believe that 2 is correct and just, then I'm glad to inform you that you support the prosecution of a thoughtcrime. An extended sentence means a more heinous violation of rights, or the violation of more than one right. By extending sentences for hate crimes, we imply that the prejudiced motive of a violation is in itself a violation. In other words, we prosecute a thoughtcrime.