Hell is justified.

[Belacqua]

Hell is justified. 

Concepts of hell have a long and interesting history. 

Some people have been troubled by anyone's desire to have other people suffer, even when it seems deserved. And I agree with you that people are capable of such terrible things that it CAN seem deserved. 

There is an alternate view of hell in which it is not a punishment for evil acts, but the state of someone who can do them. I'm pretty sure this comes from Christian Neoplatonism. 

As you know, Neoplatonism sees God as the One -- infinite, undivided, and wholly simple. This is the soul's true home, and heaven, in this view, is rejoining the undivided. Hell is the opposite extreme, in which division reaches its maximum, and we feel no connection to anything other than ourselves. 

This is from a book on Christian Neoplatonism:

the personal God the Father tends to become an impersonal first principle, or absolute, whose perfection is equated with his self-sufficient and undifferentiated unity. Evil, correspondingly, is held to be essentially a separation from unity, or a division, fragmentation, estrangement from the One, which is reflected in a division within the nature of man. [...] Second, the fall of man is conceived to be primarily a falling-out-of and falling-away-from the One, into a position of remoteness and a condition of alienation from the source. Consonantly, the original human sin is identified as self-centeredness, or selfhood, the attempt of a part to be sufficient unto itself; while the primary consequence of the fall — death — is described as a state of division from the one Being.217

This view worked its way into German Idealist philosophy as well, through Jacob Boehme:

This radical cause of separation, hence of evil, Boehme called Selbheit [Selfhood], Winstanley the “selfish” aspect of fallen and fragmented man, and Schelling the finite Ichheit which is “the point of the extremest alienation from God.” “Evil generally,” Hegel said, when it is expressed as concept rather than in the image-thinking of religion, is “the self-centered being-for-itself [das insichseiende Fürsichsein] and good is selfless simplicity [das selbstlose Einfache].”274 

Only a person entirely wrapped up in himself, with no connection to others, could commit the kind of evil act that you mention. 

William Blake noticed that such people often justify their actions through an appeal to morality. That is, someone who feels no moral or metaphysical connection to another will find it easy to pass judgment and inflict punishment, based on whatever laws society happens to make handy. 

Striving to Create a Heaven in which all shall be pure & holy
In their Own Selfhoods, in Natural Selfish Chastity to banish Pity And dear Mutual Forgiveness; & to become One Great Satan Inslavd to the most powerful Selfhood: to murder the Divine Humanity

On a small scale I think we see this all the time. People are happy to find justification to scold or insult, and feel their greater morality makes this OK. Or even their greater understanding of some subject. In this view the whole thing is a kind of sliding scale: when we increase our unity, love, and connection we are closer to God, and when we increase our atomization we are nearer to hell. 

I recently stumbled into a nest of racists and anti-Semites on the Internet. I didn't know it, but it turns out that such people are likely to rally around web sites that support traditional architecture and urban planning. It took me a while but it became clear to me that those people are just evil, and evil for this reason: they deny any connection to people unlike themselves, and narrow down the circle for which they can feel love. At the furthest extreme, that is hellish.