This article analyzes the current legislative approach to combating hate crime. Part I starts with an overview of the key theoretical arguments for and against the use of punishment enhancements for hate crime offenders. Both retribution and consequentialist theories of punishment are examined in detail in order to evaluate whether the increased punishment of hate-motivated offenders can be justified. Part II then outlines the various models of legislation that have been used to legislate for hate crime globally. Hate crime provisions in several jurisdictions (United States, Canada, England and Wales) are examined in order to explore the practical differences between the various models of legislation that have emerged. The final part of the article outlines the practical problems that are frequently faced by law enforcers and prosecutors of hate crime offenses, including the evidential difficulties posed by the inclusion of hate motivation within the law.