I actually agree with everything you said here, and think your first sentence is spot on.

To add one further clarification, I'd suggest that "demonizing" someone, for all intents and purposes, probably amounts to exactly the same thing as calling them "evil".

Which is to say, if our intent in demonizing is to bring along similar, more or less theological connotations as we often do with the word "evil", then it warrants a correction of our underlying worldview. Whereas if demonization is really just the recognition of a pattern that we ought well to be afraid or wary of, then demonization is a perfectly pragmatic and healthy reaction.

The part that I think most people miss is what I think your article, and your last sentence in your comment speak to, namely, the tragedy of it all. People fail to recognize how, when one person causes pain to their community (e.g. due to a mental divergence or any other reason), they ultimately invoke the wrath of their community, and face the consequences of that in ways that most neuro-convergent people won't ever have to face.

But whenever someone points that out, you always get people saying unhelpful things like, "well that still doesn't excuse him at all". In other words, in addition to demonizing the person and the action, they also demonize empathy towards that person.

And that's where I think my comment comes in. I'm suggesting an approach to addressing dangerous, antisocial behavior that can keep the community safe without having to cast aside our empathy towards another sentient, feeling person.

We may well demonize the pain itself, and demonize the pattern that causes the pain, but we shouldn't demonize the person, or empathy towards that person.