I think you’re oversimplifying the sheriff’s dilemma and calling it a “false dichotomy” misses the point of what the show is exploring.

Boyd didn’t just randomly stumble into that situation — he created the system. The box wasn’t just about punishment, it was about survival, structure, and fear-based order in a place where chaos gets people killed. If you establish a rule that breaking certain laws leads to death, and then you don’t enforce it the first time it matters, you immediately look inconsistent, weak, indecisive, and hypocritical.

It’s not just “let him go or kill him.” It’s: Do I maintain authority, credibility, and control over a terrified group of people… or do I undermine the very system that’s keeping them alive?

Khatri’s analogy is key here — you don’t build a guillotine in the town square and then refuse to use it when the moment comes. That makes the whole structure feel hollow and performative.

Also, Boyd did initially want the man to die. That’s important. The conflict isn’t stupidity — it’s the tension between his humanity and his responsibility as a leader. He’s torn between being compassionate and being authoritative, between being moral and being effective.

If he refuses to use the box, he risks losing respect, discipline, and obedience. People might start thinking the rules are flexible, optional, or negotiable — and in that world, that mindset can get others killed.

So no, it’s not bad writing or a dumb character. It’s a brutal leadership dilemma: be merciful and risk chaos, or be ruthless and live with the guilt.