"Hate Crimes" should not be a factor in the administration of justice

First, let me get some definitions out of the way. Crime - an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited. Hate crime – Said to occur when a victim is targeted because of a perceived membership in a certain social group (of race, gender, age, etc.) I'll introduce a term here that I will use quite often in my contention. Balance in society – A situation wherein every member of society is "adequately" compensated for any injury (physical, mental, economical, psychological, etc.) caused by other members, such that it does not further cause injuries to any other member, other than the prime injuring party. Of course adequately might mean different things for different injured parties, but I think we can work with the normal sense of the word. (If my opponent is not satisfied with these definitions, he is free to define them in his own way.) I'll begin. Whenever a crime is committed, there is an injured party. This may consist of one or more individuals, affected directly or indirectly, immediately or over a period of time. This may cause the injured parties to take immediate steps towards addressing this issue. The usual homily is "an eye for an eye", but things could go wrong in so many ways during the taking of that criminal eye. To ensure that this does not happen, society has put a law and order machinery in place. Every member of society is expected to buy into this impartial arbiter who will decide, in due course of law, how exactly to provide reparations to the injured parties. For purposes of this debate, I'll substitute society for the law and order machinery, since society has created this instrument to better serve its own purpose (insofar as society is said to have a purpose.) C1. Justice is about maintaining balance by fair compensation Whenever there is talk of crime, invariably there will be talk of justice. How will justice be served? An eye for an eye sounds good, but only if the concerned individuals are living in isolation. As long as they are part of a society, every discordant act has effects for all members of society and cannot be treated on an individual basis. Society should be (and is) more concerned with finding a correct balance so that it can continue functioning smoothly, rather than with delivering justice. True justice is impossible for human faculties to deliver. Only fair compensation can be sought. C2. Crime = Creation of imbalance. Justice = Restoration of balance For example, it might be called justice for a victim of murder to have his murderer dead. But from the point of view of society, having lost a contributing member, it doesn't make sense for it to lose the "services" of another. It is better served by having the murderer continue performing services for it (in a controlled manner, by restricting his freedom, taking steps to rehabilitate, reform him); maybe even the share of the lost member. But such an act might cause the well-wishers of the victim to "decrease their output" (due to a reduction in their mental well-being), so this should be done in a manner that they feel adequately compensated. Thus, balance has been achieved, in a way. C3. Greater the imbalance, greater the effort needed to restore balance In light of this view of crime, justice and society, let's take a look at the motives of crime and their effects. If the motive of the crime was money, revenge, food or such "normal" issues, this would affect only the involved individuals, or a very small part of society. Such crimes are indicators of society's well-being. (Crimes for money – poverty, crimes of revenge – an inefficient law and order machinery, crimes for food – hunger, etc.) It might be worthwhile for society to treat the symptoms than to cull the effect. Also, human life has to be held in high regard and all possible steps have to be taken to preserve it. Of course, the injured parties may not be concerned with all these, but society has to draw a line somewhere as to what is adequate compensation. (For example, an individual might think it's only fair to take the life of a person who "misbehaved" with his daughter.) However, if the crime was a hate crime, quite a large stratum of society (the specific social group to which the victim belongs) is affected, other than the concerned individuals. Their well-being will be diminished if they feel threatened. Thus, in order to achieve balance here, a larger group of people have to be adequately compensated as they too are a party to the injury (although indirectly) (Also, as we saw in the definition of crime, public welfare is a factor). If this means a greater punishment for the perpetrator, so be it. If that ensures the proper functioning of a greater number of people, it's a fair trade for society. This is why any crime that has a "terror quotient" deserves a stricter punishment, as the injured parties' number in large groups. However, if society deals differently towards each "group" of injured parties, that would also create a loss of balance. It has to be fair in its dealings. Summary Thus, every crime should be dealt with according to its magnitude, crimes of a similar nature should be dealt with in an equal manner and victims should be compensated adequately in such a manner that the balance in society is maintained. As hate crime creates a larger imbalance in society, it should be approached differently and SHOULD be a factor while administrating "justice".