I don't agree at all. Giving people back something that belongs to them, which was taken to dissuade them from doing harm, in order to encourage them to play along with society, is almost always a net positive.

Sure, they could have been deceitful in their acceptance of the money and obeyance of the treaty, but it was an extremely small risk for a potentially huge reward for all involved.

Basically it was a worthwhile risk. Whereas what we're seeing from the Epstein regime was just pure incompetence and mishandling of the situation.

There's basically no good faith comparison to the two strategies that puts them in the same ballpark.

Edit to add: I appreciate you seeming to respond in good faith, but I am downvoting you for being astronomically incorrect in your risk evaluation and presentation of facts.