Disincentivisation of recidivism, disincentivisation of others, isolation of dangerous individuals from society, sanitized vengeance on behalf of the victim would be the ones that someone with a different political persuasion would use. I’ve added a couple of yours to my list. Yours was a thought provoking post.

I generally agree, but don't all the latter items simply in the end have the desired result of deterring future criminal behavior?

If distracted driving was caught 95% of the time, and the sentence was something like 40 hours of community service (and escalated for repeat offenders in some manner), I don't think society has nearly as difficult of a moral problem on it's hands when a 19 year old kills a cyclist due to checking a text on their phone.

Studies repeatedly show "random" punishments (even if harsh) are simply not very effective vs. consistent enforcement. When you drop the hammer on someone who more or less got "unlucky" that day by engaging in what amounts to otherwise normalized behavior due to lack of enforcement - it gets kind of hard to see how that can be remotely effective at accomplishing much for society beyond vengeance. While that is important, it certainly isn't everything.

Doesn't all of that fall under the umbrella of "deter criminal behavior"?