Do you think that in the aftermath of crimes that its more important to punish the perpetrator or support the individual or family which was victimised? Which is the most feasible? Which has the greater or lesser social consequence?
I think about this constantly because I've had contact with quite a few people who are capable of or have been perpetrators of really criminal acts, they generally all fit a particular type of character who abdicates personal responsibility, considers themselves a greater victim of circumstances, has very little in the way of consequential thinking etc.
Its a little more than a hard luck story in most instances. So on the one hand I think that punishment, no matter how harsh or lenient in reality or as it is perceived by those immediately involved or wider society, is going to make little difference to them. It will and can make a difference to society, if it becomes blood thirsty or cruel (I'm aware that some perpetrators use the same reasoning to spare themselves before anyone says so).
On the other hand I sometimes think that a lot of therapeutic effort is made were straight forward and old fashioned "satisfaction" would be a surer fix. Satisfaction in a kind of duellists sense of the word (I'm aware too that duelling has been glamourised and valourised in a way that perhaps doesnt reflect the reality of a more might makes right code of conduct and society).