I'm just trying to point out that we can agree with a central point of Yvain's post without endorsing consequentialism. For example, Anthony Ellis <pdf> offers a deontological deterrence-based justification of punishment.

The same goes for Holmes's quip, even if in his case it was motivated by consequentialist reasoning. Especially if we take "your act was inevitable for you" to be an (overblown) restatement of the simple fact of causal determination of action.