Naw. The golden rule is pretty solid, even when turned through traverse logic*. “Do unto others as they have done” seems like a reasonable position. Treat nice people nicely, but don’t reward assholes with the same respect. History has proven that pacifist “turn the other cheek” only works when the person in the other end is a decent human being, and by their actions, these men have proven that they aren’t.

Honestly, I’m also OK with the position that society is probably better with them entirely removed from existence. Maybe reform would work, and maybe one would go on to be some Mozart who contributes greatly to society, but it’s pretty low odds and guaranteed high cost to society for the benefit of torturers and murderers, and people who have betrayed a sacred trust and authority. So, maybe let the victims or their families make that choice between reform and punishment, but if they demure, then let the punishment fit the crime.

I do believe some consideration should be made for our inability to categorically prove guilt. One innocent person unjustly punished is not a small price to pay, and there’s good evidence the rate of unjust convictions is absurdly high in the US. I still think the rule works pretty well when applied to crimes with victims: who is wronged when someone shoots up smack, and what’s an appropriate punishment to fit that crime? If we can’t answer that clearly, if there’s no victim to speak up for, then maybe we turn by default to enlightened reform.

Horrible people who’ve intentionally done unspeakable harm to others, that we would shudder to show our children… no sympathy here.