I get that, and I agree with you. But to dole out more stringent punishment because of what the criminal was THINKING when he committed the crime is nothing but government thought control. ala 1984 by Orwell.
...and here's one of the OTHER things I seem to have to explain EVERY TIME someone mentions hate crime enhancements.
HCE's do NOT, and do not attempt to, punish thought.
HCE's are based upon the recognition of additional harm to society which comes from leniency or lack of vigilance against animus crimes, due to the group-specific terror they inspire in a targeted population.
For example, consider cross-burning:
Lighting a cross on someone else's yard would -- if that symbol carried no recognizable political implications -- be cited as a violation based upon laws against trespassing, property damage, vandalism, etc.
However, the point of a cross-burning is to terrorize. Aside from burning someone's lawn and creating some messy soot and ash, the burning of something in someone's yard wouldn't really cause any lasting damage to the family living there or to any community.
But that's not what a cross burning is about. A cross-burning is not mere vandalism; it is terrorism. It is a public threat which sends the message: You Are Not Safe Here...We Will Drive You Out.
If/when law enforcement fails to crack down on such a threat, it sends a further message that the basic protections of the law don't cover everyone equally, and so it is effectively OK to terrorize some people and not others. Governments have a vested interest in the APPEARANCE of equal treatment. People who (rightly or wrongly) perceive the government to not be acting in their interest are less likely to participate in civil society, less likely to align with and communicate with law enforcement, less likely to invest (financially and through participation) in community activities associated with the government, etc. This separation, in turn, fosters a political environment in which this kind of systemic inequality leads to isolation, which in turn leads to serious differential results in the economic and social standing of people based upon their group associations (including, for example, "race"). In this manner, the terrorists (the cross-burners) end up indirectly achieving their goal: by treating a particular group as inferior and worthy of threat and violence, a series of reactions ultimately leads to their differential treatment, and then through social momentum (including self-segregation born out of anticipated discrimination), we end up with a situation where members of the targeted group actually are treated differently (worse) than others. This result -- a success for the terrorists -- sends a green light to other individuals and groups who begin to (correctly) see targeted violence as a feasible strategy for change, and the government interest in preventing that kind of precedent should be obvious.
But in any case, the larger point regarding HCE's is that NO, they do NOT punish thought. They enhance penalties/sentences for what are already criminal acts, and the basis of these sentencing enhancements is recognition of the additional concrete harm to larger communities beyond the direct targets of a specific crime.
People may of course argue up and down and sideways about whether or not they endorse this approach to sentencing, but let's at least accurately acknowledge what it is and is not...it is NOT an attempt to punish certain thoughts; it is an institutional recognition of additional harm. Polices should be supported/opposed based upon what they are, not what they are falsely painted to be.