In the previous chapter, I argued that the public health–quarantine model can successfully deal with concerns about proportionality, human dignity, victims’ rights, rehabilitation, and preemptive incapacitation. In this chapter, I will argue that it can also successfully deal with concerns about funishment, cost, deterrence, evidentiary standards, and indefinite detention. In the process of defending my account, I will revisit the issue of prison design, explain one important difference between the views of Pereboom and myself, and argue that high evidentiary standards and the importance of actus reus and mens rea can all be preserved.