And so we should not treat guilty people this way either. It is one thing to use an innocent person merely as a means, and quite another to treat a guilty person as such. And this may well turn out to be true. But if a defender of punishment has to appeal to it, he is at that point essentially abandoning the conseuentialist solution in favor of a retributivist one. Urban redevlopment evicts families from homes.
Airports sacrifice the peace of a few for the convenience of many.
Sufferers from some communicable diseases undergo irksome restrictions in the interests of public health. The list of examples could be much longer. In all of the cases that seem to support the response, the state does acts foreseeing that harm will be caused, but it does not act with the intent of causing the harm, either as an end or as a means to a further end. But in the case of punishment the state intends to harm the offenders. Punishment thus seems anamolous in this respect and cannot be defended by appealing to the presumed permissibility of these other practices.