This article objects to several points in Susan Gellman's paper on hate crimes. She considers hate crimes as aggravated versions of traditional crimes. It has long been recognized as illegitimate for criminal law to regard motives as material or defining elements of criminal offenses. Hate crimes -- which punish people more severely when they act by reason of racial bias or hatred -- are thereby making motives into material or defining elements and are therefore illegitimate. This article finds the arguments unpersuasive because: (1) it is false that criminal law never takes account of motives as elements; (2) even if this is a true description of criminal law to date, it simply shows that criminal law should be improved by allowing motives sometimes to count; and (3) at least in some instances, the very concept of harm or injury cannot be understood independent of motives and other mental states. Notes