As I’ve noted many times before, the decision on prosecuting Trump for January 6 is the land of no good options. If you do, some of the population perceives it as the act of a vengeful autocracy, which makes the country look like a banana republic; if you don’t, you’re admitting that Trump is above the law and will never be contained by it, which also makes the country look like a banana republic. The banana republic argument, therefore, cuts both ways, and is a wash.
The real questions you need to ask are more pragmatic. There is no doubt that a successful prosecution will further alienate the reactionary segment of our community from liberal democratic politics. On the other hand, a successful prosecution will also deter the more extreme members of that group from violent activity, and a not guilty verdict will presumably increase their confidence in the system. Which considerations should be given more weight?
Trump is likely to try again if he loses in 2024. He can’t do it without allies. The absence of any meaningful pro-Trump violence since 2020 suggests the ongoing prosecutions of January 6 rioters has had a chilling effect on the extremists. On balance, therefore, it would appear that the deterrence factor should prevail over the alienation argument; the evidence indicates that prosecutions make further insurrections less, not more, likely.