>> but that doesn't mean we should join in on it as outsiders and say things like "well at least he gave the guy some precautions for the future". An extreme v

>> but that doesn't mean we should join in on it as outsiders and say things like "well at least he gave the guy some precautions for the future". An extreme version of this, where social approval is expected by perpetrators (sometimes justifiably) is vigilantism. It is illegal, and society is worse off for it in a general sense, and yet... Compare a blackhat who takes over all the routers and sells the botnet to organized crime ring vs a grayhat who does the same but instead patches the vulnerabilities on the devices or uses them to do internet census and puts the data in public domain. Both are illegal acts and both have victims (maybe some devices are bricked in the process), but one is definitely worse. And that is true even if in both scenarios all the devices got bricked so consequences are exactly the same. >> rather than providing leniency in punishment after the fact I meant judgement more in social disapproval sense. As for actual judges, they already have some leeway and often use it. There is a reason politicians who want to be seen as being tough on crime like to introduce mandatory minimums. I agree that crimes are better prevented by reducing a need to commit them, but taking into account intent and mitigating circumstances is one of the ways to do that. Mandatory minimums just make sure criminals leave prisons with a Phd in crime instead of a mere Bachelor's.