The distinction I was trying to make is that most people take a gradual approach to this contract, even if they don't articulate it, i.e. they say "you robbed a

The distinction I was trying to make is that most people take a gradual approach to this contract, even if they don't articulate it, i.e. they say "you robbed a gas station, [so you are 15% "pond scum" and 85% not, so we are going to take 15% of your rights away, ] so we are going to jail you for a year", or "you killed this family and ate the bodies, [so you are 90% "pond scum", so we are going to take 90% of your rights away, ] so we are going to execute you". I think the problem is actually uncertainty. If someone robbed a gas station, it's not that they broke the social contract N% of the way and are N% "pond scum"; it's that we are about N% sure that they are 100% "pond scum". So, before we are sure enough, they have full rights and we should try to re-integrate them and not punish them beyond fixing the damage, and after we are sure enough (which may be on the 5th bike, 3rd gas station, or the 1st rape), they have no rights and yeah, it's e.g. mines/lethal injection. Either way it responds to the original objection... punishment/retaliation works fine with negative-only rights.