Making the distinction doesn't have to mean prosecuting it differently (or, that is, it's no different than any other prosecutorial angle used to win over a jury); there's a difference between how we prosecute crime and how we prevent it. Prevention measures require us to understand why a given crime happened, therefore the distinction is relevant.

It's everyone's own responsibility to see the line between prosecution and prevention, whether you're a jury, a judge, or just sitting here talking about it. There are people on both sides failing to see that line; whether someone says: "This is worse because it's a hate crime so the punishment should be greater and the trial doesn't need to be thorough!" OR says: "Well, a murder is a murder, it's no use discussing the motive..." Well, they're both wrong. It's principally off-base.

Above all else, we have to be an intelligent enough society to be able to discuss these issues in detail, but also maintain the ability to pass judgment blindly, and be able to factor in everything: gun control, mental health, race, and the individual nuances of the case. When I encounter someone who willfully ignores any element of it, or blames one particular element as obvious, I tend to see that person as an ideologue who is shaping the narrative to their own.