Remember folks, what the government does to weev, it can do to everyone else.
Sure. That is in fact one of the reasons that people establish governments in the first place: to keep other people socially constrained to a certain minimal level of acceptable behavior and to sanction those who do not comply. In the case of the US, the Preamble to the Constitution clearly states this as a goal: "We the people of the United States, in order to [among other things] . . . insure domestic tranquility . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What those behavior standards are and what sanctions can be applied reflect the society that establishes the government.
In the Weev case, I think society's expectations and the government's implementation of those expectations don't really work that well for anyone. We've got a guy with personality, psychological and social problems that make him prone to bad behavior. They also make him rather thoroughly unlikable. So when he does commit a crime, his punishment is at least as much -- IMO -- for his unlikability and society's distaste for mental illness as it is for the actual crime committed. And for his punishment we choose the one thing that will certainly make him worse: increased, extreme isolation and other abusive treatment. To not expect him to come out worse than he went in is pure delusion. But this time it's society's delusion, not Weev's.
The obvious strawman response to this is something along the lines of: "So, Rob, we should just let him get away with anything because he's 'sick'?" To which I have no response, because it's a strawman.
My point is if we wanted to find a way to make a bad situation like this worse, it's hard to imagine how we'd do it more effectively. It's unfortunate for all of us that this is the best we've got.