It is a profound dilemma - for me at least - which among the two is worse: To live in a society in which the sovereign maintains warehouses of living human bodies; or kills people for non-capital offenses.
I would like a society with "neither". And if you ever spend a while in prison, or your friends do, or even if you read some accounts like this one, or Foucault's "History of madness in the age of reason", I think you might draw nearer to this conclusion.
There are other things to look into, of course: the causes, like inequality, lack of education, mental illness, health, the justice system, legalize things that should not be illegal. It's also possible to hold a register of those individuals, and to signal the public about it, too?
At least be open with the idea. It's fine if you disagree with it. If you're fine with capital punishment or prisons, then I guess there is no point for debate?
I'm no psychology expert, I'd love to hear an informed opinion on this.
It's less about getting help and more about wanting to get help. The depressive person might want that help because they realize they can hardly function, the violent person might not want that help because they discovered they can use violence as a tool.
And that's why it's considered repugnant.
well first off some depressive people show an increased tendency towards violence https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4520382/ (although also of course it is a well known statistic that being depressed often makes you a victim of violent crime as well or at least there is some relation between the two)
also in my experience people who commit violence often suffer for the violence they have committed although that is very much dependent on the person.
Reliable rehabilitation doesn't exist.
Also, you're implicitly assuming that the state is the instrument of society; but this is at most partly true.
Finally, is criminality in the nature of some people? Is it a character trait? If it is not, then can we even answer your question? Is "deterrence" or "rehabilitation" (two common answers to your question) even meaningful? Especially when some acts or behaviors get de-criminalized, or criminalized, over time? Homoesexual relations; use of various substances; squatting real-estate; expressing different kinds of opinions; etc.
So, yeah, I've shirked your question, but I really don't think it's a useful one the way you phrased it.
[not to be confused with early Australia or whatever in pop culture].
But to name just one practical objection: this would only intensify policing of borders (internal to a state's territory or otherwise). Siberian exiles of Tsarist Russia were quite frequently able to make it back to the urban west. Leon Trotsky is one famous example.
They’d make the rules they live by. There is no “man”. It’s just them.