He "deserves whatever punishment was meted out to him"? What if the law dictated life in prison, or the death penalty, or for him to be drawn and quartered?
People, particularly young men in their early 20s, mess up. He certainly needed to be put in prison for years, but decades? The person someone is when they're 30 is wildly different from who they were when they were 20, biologically.
Even if his crime actually ended in someone being injured or killed.
We're not talking about Jean Valjean who stole a loaf of bread to feed his family. It's someone who committed a violent crime of robbing a bank because they wanted someone else's money, and they didn't want to earn it the slow, hard way. They knew what they were doing was wrong. They need to accept the consequences of their actions, including 18 years in jail. I'm sure the person in question has done this, and that's why I have problems with any efforts in rehabilitating him now that he has served his time.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. It's as simple as that. If the punishment were death for robbing a bank were death, and you still went ahead and did it, whose fault is that? People need to take responsibility for their own actions. They didn't accidentally rob a bank, or they weren't somehow tricked into robbing a bank. They knowingly decided to do it. If the sentence was 18 years, then I'm satisfied that justice was served.
So, suppose the crime were downloading academic articles, and the punishment was to be up to 35 years in prison...
What you're arguing for is the inherent rightness of State violence. But the government can be wrong, and it often is wrong. If it's wrong, it's not moral to say, "Well, the government said it would do [wrong thing] to him, who am I to question it?" Instead, you question it and call it into doubt, not try to make a descriptive consequence into a prescriptive consequence.
Rarely are the minds of people who will go to this level as simple as greed. Often times it's to save a life that is falling apart, the stress of the situation leading you to make decisions that turn out to be bad. Is it selfish? Sometimes. Is it greed? Maybe to an extent. Is it simple? Never. In fact that's the only thing that is simple, that these things are always complicated.
What does Afghan insurgent mean in this context? Do you mean an Afghani citizen robbing a bank in the USA? Or an Afghan insurgent who also decides to rob an Afghan bank? Or an Afghan insurgent who robs a bank in the USA (presumably in an attempt to further the insurgency)?
It certainly would influence my hiring decision. Not a show stopper, but certainly a minor negative. Probably the damage done by lost opportunities for experience would be worse than having a record, though. That even functions as an excuse of sorts--I suspect I'd actually like someone who was in prison for five years and got a degree over someone who lived off a trust fund for five years and did nothing.
All depends on the person, though, and what exactly I'm hiring for. And someone coming out of prison after 20 years? The fact that they committed a crime is long past, but it's hard to overstate how damaging decades in prison is. People have a really hard time adjusting, and any hire of someone like that I did would be out of charity, not out of expecting to get any value out of the person. If they manage to do well, I'd take that as an unexpected plus.
People, particularly young men in their early 20s, mess up. He certainly needed to be put in prison for years, but decades? The person someone is when they're 30 is wildly different from who they were when they were 20, biologically.
Even if his crime actually ended in someone being injured or killed.