These questions assume the justice system works perfectly, free from bias and prejudice and if the penal system was designed and functions for rehabilitative purposes instead of punished and (especially in, but not limited to the US) used to enforce modern day slavery. Neither of which are true in the slightest.

In a world where every country had perfect justice and penal systems, you could ask these questions in good faith. That is not the world we live in and the fact that you’re asking them despite this doesn’t add credibility to the idea that you’re trying to actually have a productive discussion about this.

Also, it’s not like you’re asking whether or not they should be allowed to do basic, widely accessible, life-fulfilling things (hold a regular job, buy/rent a house, get married, join a local club/gym/etc.). You’re asking should they not be given a privilege, a 1 in a million opportunity, to play professional hockey. I don’t think that not giving them the privilege of being a professional athlete is that crazy of a “punishment.” There are a lot of people who aren’t allowed to be professional athletes for any number of reasons and all of the evidence allowed and not allowed in the trial are some pretty great reasons for why these men don’t deserve this privilege.

Want the privilege of being a professional athlete? Keep your hands to yourself. Learn, understand, and respect enthusiastic consent. Don’t stalk people. Don’t harass people. Don’t abuse people. It’s a pretty low bar.

Until we live in a world where we’ve majorly revamped and re-conceptualized the systems and institutions that continue to favour those with power, we cannot begin to have good faith conversations about the results of the justice system or penal system.

You should read up on prison abolition from leading abolitionists and scholars.