Hate Crime Legislation

Amidst all the jive about guns and capitalism and all those funny people breaking each others bones over a sliver of sand, I think we should get down with THIS issue.
     Now, I've seen that South Park episode where the kids had the presentation on how most violent crimes were hate crimes and reverese racism and yada yada. That is the typical 'common-sensical' jazz I've heard before. I want a factual debate on this. We can at least try. What do you think? Philosophical debate is good, factual argumentation and examples of causality are preferable.

How in the world could it be possible to derive an intent to legislate against mental patterns in my text? I was primarily asking for pragmatic examples and intelligent opposition, not made-up diametrical opposition. Here is some kind of proposition, anyway. All crimes have an immediate sentence, a neutral sentence. Helping an investigation or acting under a threatening situation limits the sentence, acting under intoxication or not having a moral defense adds to it. No juries, just maths. Is that proposition "gay" or something? What I think is hilarious is how Bush actually has an acceptingstance on hate crime legislation  as long as gays are not included. How nice of him, and how nice of those that voted for him.