Motivations show premeditation. And premeditation indicates that the perpetrator of a particular crime had time to think through the consequences of their actions. They had a chance to stop and think, yet chose to go ahead with their crimes anyway. There are numerous motivations in committing crime, some more morally reprehensible than others. A starving person motivated to steal food by the raging hunger in his belly is in a different moral category to a man who murders his wife to get his hands on the life insurance.

Hate and revenge are similar motivations for crime, and one would argue that neither can be justified in principle. However, hate on its own is arguably more serious as the object of such hate doesn't have to have done anything to hurt the perpetrator. The victim can be singled out, not for what they've done, as in the case of revenge, but simply because of what they are, because of their gender, race, or religion.

The motivation of the perpetrator is a substantial factor in determining the mens rea of the actor. It is manifestly unfair to punish one who acts from desperation or the heat of passion the same as one who acts from greed, malice, or other sinister motives. Homicide is a prime example. Murder by definition is the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought. The very definition implies that the crime was committed after calm reflection; literally "in cold blood." Killings committed in the heat of passion or as the result of gross negligence are still crimes, but do not have the same degree of intent as a homicide committed with malice aforethought.

Both hate and revenge are heinous; and it is difficult to imagine that one is less culpable than the other. Both imply a degree of reflection and the opportunity to reflect on one's actions. For that reason, they are indistinguishable in terms of mens rea.