[UndauntedR]

claiming to be able to determine the inner thought or intent of the alleged perpetrator

which is to be proven in a court of law. Graffiti on a boxcar which reads "Kevin" is a different crime than graffiti on a synagogue which reads "Die Kykes" or a swastika or "Zyklon B", etc. The latter action creates a climate of fear in a whole group of people (as opposed to actions/threats against an individual, which can be prosecuted more easily) and should carry with it a greater punishment.

to assign criminality to particular thought or intent; and weighing the actual act as being of greater or lesser evil because of that thought or intent.

Only if that thought or intent was indeed successful at terrorizing an entire group of people. The logic being that a crime which ratchets up an already existing fear causes a greater social unrest than a crime that does not and should be punished appropriately.

I think the name "hate crime" is entirely misleading as well - as it does imply what you're arguing. But it is just not the intent of these laws.

[ExGeeEye]

...creates a climate of fear in a whole group of people (as opposed to actions/threats against an individual, which can be prosecuted more easily) and should carry with it a greater punishment.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. In my view, how anyone feels about a crime must never be taken into account at all, and the idea of it being used to determine the punishment for the underlying act is abhorrent to me.