It's the same if not better compared to the alternative, right? Person isn't bothering society and the state isn't subsidizing their imprisonment. Exiling people kinda sounds like the best option unless you like punishment.

I really don't like the idea of keeping people in boxes, and agree that even in the case of the most wretched human being I'd rather have them free and alone than locked in a box without a goal besides punishment. However, this man's crime was human trafficing. Do you really want a human trafficer living in the woods like some kind of troll monster, ready to capture more children? That sounds like it could potentially result in more captive humans, rather than less.

Being alone is not healthy whatsoever. I dread to think of his mental condition.

Provided the conditions outlined in GP are met, why not?

What's the point of imprisoning someone?

Punishment? This clearly was less harsh, or he would not prefer it.

Protecting society? He roams free.

A deterrent? Leaving him there would send the message to others that escaping and evading capture is a viable route to freedom.

Ideally it'd be rehabilitating the offender, so they can rejoin society and be less likely to offend in the future.

This could mean mental health evaluation and treatment, addiction counseling, education and job training to help them learn a skill, and restorative justice.

I'd say none of these things happened in a cave.

17 years is a long time to think about what you've done, so it's very possible that he is no longer a threat to society. And if there's no evidence that he has committed crimes while living in the cave, how likely is he to commit crimes going forward?

I think it should be brought in, evaluated, and released if he no longer poses a threat.

> Punishment? This clearly was less harsh, or he would not prefer it.

The fact that it was less harsh does not mean it was not harsh enough; meaning that chineese concentration camps might be disproportionately harsh to the crime (although his crimes were among the worst, so...)

> Protecting society? He roams free.

That's an exaggeration, I highly doubt that he could roam free. His maximum radius of travel must have been severly limited, given no access to transportation, plus it looks like so, as he did not move away from that, high risk area.

> A deterrent? Leaving him there would send the message to others that escaping and evading capture is a viable route to freedom.

Nonetheless, it is a viable route to freedom. It would be enforced/promoted if they left him though.

Fence/wall off a large section of useless land in a temperate climate. Post the perimeter with motion-activated machine guns.

Give the condemned a backpack of provisions, the cut them loose into the Exile Zone.

Sure, maybe we can also televise it. Maybe we can send people in to hunt them, too.

'The Island'