I know how excited we all are to board the moral outrage train, but there's an actual answer to that: http://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/1/19/14266230/empathy-...
Because people often think that acting rationally and empathetically are two distinct actions, and that's not the case.
For example, someone gets caught with some crumbs of weed. You could make the empathetic argument for fining that person rather than jail time because, "They're not hurting anyone. It's just a little weed.", so on and so forth. Or you could make the logical/rational argument that the punishment and what stems from it (housing a person in jail, the economic aspects of ruining this person's life for what really is a victimless crime) does not fit the crime.
What is the depth that makes it sound good?