I am saying that scientifically reformative forms of justice result in reduced recidivism.

There’s basically three different motivations in criminal justice. The first is isolation - removing a dangerous member of society from an environment where they can do harm. That doesn’t mean the incarceration needs to be brutal, or even uncomfortable. You can encase them in carbonite or lock them in a room at the Ritz, because the goal of preventing additional harm is effected.

The second is restoration and reformation. Again, this runs the gamut from counseling to Clockwork Orange. This approach both prevents additional harm and restores an individual as a functioning member of society.

The third is punishment. Punishment itself has a few different motivations. The first is reformation, as in the above, but it does it’s job less efficiently than other, less ham-fisted methods. The second is disincentivizing other people from commuting a crime, either through fear of punishment or (in an economic sense) decreasing the net benefit of committing a crime such that a rational actor will decide not to do it. That one is a mixed bag in terms of effectiveness. The evidence does not support the proposal that harsher penalties reduce crime. The third is just balancing the karmic books - the idea that society must avenge itself violently against someone who caused crime, just because “they deserve it.” I’m pretty sure that last one lacks support from either a pragmatic or an ethical standpoint, but it does seem to be a major motivating factor in the American justice system.