>>I’m often curious as to whether people like yourself would feel the same after actually spending time in jail yourself (much less prison)

I would hate it, but I hardly see how that's relevant. My dislike for the idea of spending a night in jail is not as strong as my dislike for the idea of not being able to call emergency services because some idiot bought an illegal jammer to stop his kids going online. Out of the two I'd rather spend a night in jail than not be able to call an ambulance.

The parent post was lamenting that people find it far to easy to demand prison sentences instead of considering more humane forms of punishment. And "a night in jail" is not at all comparable to "six month in prison", including the likely loss of employment and employability, social stigma, straining of relationships, and so on. (ok, arguably the parent post was only about the restraint of freedom)

The demand for imprisonment seen today in discussions like this is comparable to a medieval mob cheering for public executions. It is the most violent form of punishment our society uses, so the mob demands we use that - anything less would mean the unperson gets away easy. Most people seem to demand imprisonment with little idea how horrible that punishment actually is, or worse, they don't care, as long as there is blood for the blood god. Not to mention the costs.

Let me reformulate it as a question of justification against alternatives: Why do you think imprisonment is necessary and useful in this case instead of a monetary fine or forced labor / "community service"?

Well.....allow me to reprhase my original comment then.

The crime comes with a range of punishments attached to it. One of them is jail time, the others are financial fines.

In general I think that yes, jail time fits the crime of jamming critical infrastructure - like, in a general broad sense. You mess with emergency services, the punishment for that is jail.

However, the law allows for lesser punishments - and I believe in this case he won't actually go to jail. As far as the article suggests, he wasn't acting maliciously so he will just get a financial fine. But I still think that the option of jail should be there for people who are found to be acting recklessly or maliciously.

Penalty doesn't have to mean imprisonment. It could mean a big fine or a lengthy community service judgement. Whatever it is, it should benefit the general population at the cost of the individual who was reckless or aggressively selfish.