We probably shouldn't send people to prison for first-time trivial crimes (which this might have been) but "trivial" and "non-violent" aren't the same.
Well it does punish them. It punishes them with what many would consider torture, and again, my point is that most of these sentences are for non-violent crimes.
> it's also (theoretically) a deterrent to other potential criminals
Yes. Because people will stop smoking pot, stop being dumb drunks, and stop making non-violent mistakes, because of mandatory minimums, 3 strike laws, and horrific legal processes that threaten defendants with maximum sentences for confessions and settlements.
> a chance to rehabilitate the prisoner
Yes, sticking non-violent prisoners in with entrenched gang societies helps rehabilitate people. Also, we rehabilitate them with punishment. Great job state.
If you believe we should lock people up for non-violent crime, my statements stand.
It's a criminal punishment system that punishes not only non-violent and trivial crimes, but also meaningful dissent/experimentation that doesn't hurt anyone, with cruel and unproductive punishment. If we want to continue to "punish" people, and yet talk about "rehabilitation", then I believe there's a little bit of cognitive dissonance happening if you agree these things can coexist.