Creo que el problema va más allá, y exige pensar un poco sobre si es razonable enfocar el cumplimiento de las penas hacia la reinserción y la resocialización, o si lo que merece un hombre que libremente decide delinquir es simplemente hacerle pagar por lo que ha hecho. Pero eso sí es política, con pe mayúscula, y coincido contigo en que no es este el foro adecuado para hablar de ella.
De todos modos, por si alguien tiene interés...
"And thus, in the state of nature, “one man comes by a power over another;” but yet no absolute or arbitrary power, to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats, or boundless extravagancy of his own will; but only to retribute to him, so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression; which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint: for these two are the only reasons, why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment. In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tye, which is to secure them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him.
(...) a criminal, who having renounced reason, the common rule and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind; and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger, one of those wild savage beasts, with whom men can have no society nor security."
John Locke, Segundo Tratado sobre el Gobierno Civil.