It's partially justice. It's certainly a natural response on the part of the father, even if it was probably taken too far. If the perpetrator had received this kind of response to his earliest attempts at offending, I highly doubt he'd be in that situation. I think every behaviour needs appropriate consequences, even if only to keep people on the appropriate path. And I suspect the child, seeing that there was punishment for the person who was willing to abuse him without conscience, will have much more trust that the world is just and that there is such a thing as protection from harm. The child's response shows that he himself was raised to have a conscience, and have empathy, so I'm not sure I'd fault the father too much in that situation.
Giving people a lukewarm consequence for monstrous behaviour, imo, only serves to reinforce or normalize it as 'not that bad'.
However... I know many people here will be offended by this, but... We shouldn't forget that that perpetrator, in order to get to that point in the first place, was almost certainly originally a victim, and in order to get to this type of behaviour a very long-term victim. He perhaps learned that this behaviour was acceptable because their own abuser(s) (&/or person(s) who neglected them) went unpunished, and they alone paid the price, which is often the reason offenders give for offending against others. It's sometimes a twisted way to try to make the world a 'fairer' place, in a strange way. Removing him from society so that he won't harm other innocent victims is, imo, justice. I understand the father's response. The response of the judicial system, not so much. Setting him up to be re-abused in the way he was probably originally abused and learned to harm others, is not justice, but savagery. Just my opinion, of course.
