The three white men convicted in the murder of Ahmaud Arbery, a Black man, last fall were all sentenced to life in prison. Two of them, Travis and his father Gregory McMichael, got life without parole. William “Roddie” Bryan Jr., who just chased Arbery through his Georgia neighborhood and recorded his death on his cell phone, could get parole after 30 years.

This month they have been on trial again, on federal hate crime charges. The jury went into deliberations on Monday. Prosecutors hoped their arguments proved the three were motivated by racial hatred. While that motivation might seem obvious, proving it beyond a reasonable doubt is difficult.

We wonder sometimes about the need to proceed with such cases, especially when the regular criminal charge have been successfully prosecuted, and heavy punishment has already been administered. We understand hate crimes affect more than just the victim — Arbery, in this case. Whether it is Arbery, or George Floyd, or Daunte Wright, or an Asian person attacked because COVID started in China, a rabbi in a synagogue, or a Muslim in a mosque, hate crimes are intended to intimidate and harm.

So, prosecuting hate crimes makes sense, to reassure the rest of the community. But proving hateful intent is hard.

What happens when the government pursues such charges and is unable to get a conviction?

How reassuring is that to the affected community?

Isn’t sending killers to prison for the rest of their lives assurance enough?