rationale behind hate crimes

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

At 05:07 PM 1/10/01 -0500, Charles wrote:
>Actually, as your dialogue suggests, cases of hate murder, don't allow for
much differentiation between a hate murder and other murders, since the
potential punishment of any murder is usually the maximum penalty (either
life or death penalty), so there isn't any room for punishing the "hate" in
the mental element. The same with a hate assault less than murder. 
>
>So, the only area left to differentiate these statutes from murder,
assault or other statutes is nipping  the hate murders in the bud before
they occur by punishing advocacy of fascistic racism , as in the historical
examples of the Nazis and the KKK. See archives for several threads on
outlawing the Nazis and KKK ( with me and maybe Ken Lawrence the only ones
arguing on this side of it ). 
>

But the "hate crime" laws are intended to punish the actual perpetrator,
not the advocate.  So following your argument, singling out "hate
motivation" has virtually zero effect on punishment, and it also seems to
have near zero effect on advocacy, since one can safely advocate bigotry as
long as one is smart enough not to do what one says.  

As I understand it, the advocacy of bigotry can fall under the encouraging
crime laws, no?  Do the hate crime laws apply here?  If not, the 'hate
crime' concept seems to be another diversion into psychology, as opposed to
real crackdown on fascist groups and their sponsors.

wojtek