Why do we care more about laws that sound good than laws that do good?

My short-form argument is this: the First Amendment applies to bigots, too. What somebody says while brutalizing another person may interest the jury (e.g. probative of motive), but they should ultimately go to jail for the beating, not the speaking. The speaking should not serve as a magic wand for transporting the matter to federal court--and it definitely should not be the basis for increased criminal sanctions, because that would be a clear violation of the First Amendment.

(And it should go without saying that we ought never assume bigotry simply because the victim belongs to a politically powerful superminority, so some expression of hate is presumably necessary to make it a "hate crime.")

The longer complaint is that no matter how nice they make us feel, "hate crime" bills don't make any sense. Now, "equal protection" is a challenging phrase, I admit. Is it prophylactic? Does it demand reparation? Does it deal in actuals or potentials? I think the argument can be made that hate crime bills violate equal protection, but we needn't get stuck in that particular minefield.

Because the phrase "hate crime" is not nearly as challenging--it's obviously silly. I mean, really--is "love crime" better? Should sentences be lightened for crimes perpetrated against people we really like?

"Well, your honor, I beat the @#$% out of him because I think he's a classy fellow."

This is ludicrous. From the article:

The hate crimes measure was named for Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming teenager who died after being kidnapped and severely beaten in October 1998, and James Byrd Jr., an African-American man dragged to death in Texas the same year.

Look. If your state doesn't have laws that punish people for kidnapping you or murdering you, you probably don't live in the United States. And I don't think the guy who murders a member of a politically powerful superminority should be treated any differently than the guy who murders a rich WASP.

I am familiar with the passionate arguments in favor of these asinine laws (e.g. "minorities are targeted for reasons that don't apply to most people," "white/male/Christian privilege," et cetera), but feel free to repeat them here and I will be happy to respond to them directly. Most of my answers will take this form: "No one should be allowed to assault you, ever. But they should be allowed to hate you, and not be punished for it, because hate is an idea and in this country we do not criminalize ideas."

I could say more, but my son wants to play Chateau Roquefort. We can continue this in the comments. d^_^b