I never said constraining free will was negative, I suggested that removing the bad consequences of bad choices negates the purpose of being able to make that choice in the first place.
A somewhat reasonable position to take for people whose bad choices impact only them.
Your implicit argument, however, is that there's no such thing as an innocent victim. This position is untenable.
I hold a person who has the ability to save someone from harm but refuses to do so in the highest contempt. I fail to see why a god should be held to a lower one.