The first thing that needs to be examined with respect to this incident is, was a crime committed? We can't talk about "punishment fitting the crime" until we establish that first. Also, in order for there to be a crime there must be a victim and so we need to establish whether or not there was physical harm to a person(s) or a to property. If there was no act of aggression upon a person or a person's property then there is no crime. Someone may have been "offended" but is offending someone actually a crime?

Now, while "free speech" doesn't mean a person can say anything, anywhere that, doesn't prevent anyone from saying things that may be offensive. Where do you draw the line? If saying things that are offensive become crimes the sky is the limit! You call someone a dumb-dumb... what punishment does that deserve? Who decides what's offensive or what's too offensive and therefore, worthy of punishment? This is a Pandora's Box.

As far as the issue of incarceration for "non-violent" crimes the answer is, there should not be any. Again, if there was a crime then then perpetrator should be made to pay restitution to the victim. What we have now is a system where victims are victimized twice because once the state gets involved they assume the role of victim and exact their punishment. The actual victim gets nothing but maybe the satisfaction of the perpetrator being punished and then they get to pay more taxes to put them behind bars. This makes no sense; there is not even an attempt made to restore the victim - No Restitution.

I was going to comment on the problem with the privatization of the prison system but my comment is already rather long so I'll leave that for another time.