And the answer seems to vary with the person. Ideally, confinement conditions should be strict but not onerous, and fair, so that convicted criminals suffer little more than the loss of their freedom, which is not insignificant, but a necessary evil in any legal system. No system is perfect, so we should strive to protect society without brutalizing the innocent, either by allowing the guilty to prey on them or sending them to gulags if wrongfully convicted.

The biggest issue for me here is when the death penalty rears its ugly head, and I once again refer to the godfather of American conservatism quoted at the end of the linked article (on the UK billing wrongfully convicted people for "room and board" in prison. )

"We find in the rules laid down by the greatest English judges, who have been the brightest of mankind, [that] we are to look upon it as more beneficial that many guilty persons should escape unpunished than one innocent person should suffer. The reason is because it is of more importance to [the] community that innocence should be protected than it is that guilt should be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world that all of them cannot be punished, and many times they happen in such a manner that it is not of much consequence to the public whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'It is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this should take place in the mind of the subject there would be an end to all security whatsoever." --John Adams, in defense of British soldiers accused of murders at the Boston Massacre.

The observation was not an idle one; it was from an American patriot called to the onerous task of defending Redcoats involved in the Boston Massacre while his neighbors screamed for their blood. But the final point is powerful even if we ignore the cause of justice itself: If the entire populace subjected to the rule of law comes to feel it is arbitrary and vindictive, that they can be subject to the most extreme consequences despite being devoid of guilt, then their respect for law will vanish, and anarchy will be substituted for a law generally regarded as no better than it. If guilt is no longer seen as a prerequisite of penalties, those penalties no longer provide a deterrent and we have no more surety of safety than the restraint of individuals, a restraint so secure that it motivated the creation of laws in the first place.

EDIT: A final tangential but important note. Not only are many prosecutors more concerned with conviction percentage than actual justice, but this reflects a deeper relative: Whether it's mass murder or a shoplifted lollipop, once a suspect is apprehended, tried and convicted the case is closed and THE POLICE NO LONGER SEEK THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE. I mean, they've got him, right? Of course, if an innocent man is convicted of murder, it inevitably follows that the actual murderer was not, so unless he happens to have been convicted of another crime--he's still out there. And no one is looking for him....