What if somebody sprays hate graffiti like a Swastika on a wall? Is that just run-of-the-mill vandalism or should it be punished as a hate crime?

You can think whatever you want. You can even hate. But if you decide to put that hate into action, that is where there is a limit on freedom of "thought."

My answer is like Jen S. If our private thoughts are subject to prosecution, how many of would not be criminals? The laws, I believe, are based on actions, only. One's intent should not be prosecuted. However, several cases recently question that presumption. If an airline passenger mentions a bomb aboard, there is no action but speech, but the possibility of it being true demands that it be considered true, resulting in delayed flight and lots of expense. It is fast becoming a fuzzy concept, depending on the courts.

It's absurd to punish a person because of what one believes are his thoughts. If "X" murders "Y", "X" should be prosecuted for the crime he has committed not because we think he committed the crime because "Y" has a different skin color.

Apparently political correctness is now entering the area of jurisprudence. I would venture that any intelligent 15 year old would know that trying to assess what goes on in a person's mind equates almost with the Salem witch hunts.

I don't think people should be punished just for thought crimes, but when they take action, such as committing a hate crime, I believe that the thoughts of the person should be considered. It should be one of the additional circumstances that the court or jury reviews. If the criminals want to get lighter sentences because of their difficult childhood, drug addiction and lack of money, then they should get longer time in prison when they commit crimes based on hate.

This appears to be a hate crime, evidenced by the fact that the perpetuators of the crime used racial and anti-gays epithets. The racist and anti-gay thought exposed by the use of epithets could be used to characterize the event as a hate crime.

One of the guys is charged with manslaughter, as he should be, and the other with a hate crime. What did the second guy do to cause the death of Mr. Singh? He was verbally insulting when he thought Mr. Singh was gay. Is there really a penalty for ignorance? Or is he being charged with implanting a thought into the killer's mind?

This claim that ay hate crime prosecution is ipso facto about "thought crime" is nonsense. Hate crimes are intended not simply to damage the victim but to intimidate others who are "different" from the perpetrator's idea of the norm in the same way that the victim is. Therefore, the victim is not the only person who has been hurt, and thus the perpetrator should be eligible for additional punishment.

Unless a person can be proven to be a member of a specific organization with well known publicized beliefs and prejudices I don't really think you can positively identify someone's "thought" before committing a crime other than general thoughts of violence or deceit. I have mixed feeling when it comes to classifying something as a "hate crime." In my opinion if Mr. A commits a crime, especially a violent crime, against Mr. B regardless of either Mr A. or Mr. B's nationality, religion, sexual orientation, economic situation, or political belief then it's a pretty safe bet that Mr. A does not have any "warm" feelings toward Mr. B.

I don't believe in punishing someone for a thought. I don't consider a hateful thought to be a crime. We have a right to think as we choose in this country. I think this right should be maintained and protected.It is a shame that people would use christianity as an excuse to harm someone for being different. Jesus never said to go and attack someone for things that You don’t like about them… In fact the bible says over and over again that God is the judge--- not YOU or any other man. We all have a right to think as we choose. I hope rights are not infringed upon because of a few.

In response to the discussion question: How far we should go in punishing thought crime separately and apart from a physical crime?, my opinion is pretty cut and dried. In America, people can think anything in the world they want to think and should certainly not be punished for having thoughts that are not within the realm of what some might feel is acceptable. Most people, I'm sure, have had bad thoughts that they would prefer noone ever know about. However, when a person acts on his thoughts, if a crime against against person is committed, then he should be punished to the limits of the law. Hate crimes are one of the most digusting crimes imaginable. To harm another person, simply because of the color of his/her skin, his/her type of religion, his/her being hetero or homo sexual, etc....with no regard as to who that person really is, is reprehensible.

I've often thought that any pre-meditated crime could be classified as a hate crime. These crimes often have racial, religious or other non-personal motivations. Hate crime is heinous and should be punished, but we must be careful to protect freedom of speech. Expressing an unpopular opinion, nonviolently, is completely legal, although unpleasant.

The attackers thought that Singh was homosexual because of the fact that he did not have a female "date". Even though he was dancing with both males and females. Hate crimes against homosexuals are almost as highly publicized as crimes against african americans, or any "minor" ethnic group. This type of bias should not be concidered as the "norm", but unfortionatly it is becoming more popular.