Bit of an unpopular opinion here: either you have a criminal correction system or a justice system or a hybrid of the two. My unpopular opinion is that if justice is to be administered in any shape or form it supersedes the need to correct a criminal.
I am sure many here will agree with "Ends don't justify means". That goes both ways,the end goal of rehabilitating a criminal does not justify the means.
To me justice means to correct a wrong done. Someone did some wrong therefore a fairly measured punishment is given so that the wrong doer suffers and/or makes up for their wrong actions. It is this idea that when someone commits a wrong they are indebted for that wrong. It does not have to be a criminal situation, when you see someone suffer and offer help, you saw wrong and attempted to correct it,you attempted to administer justice even though there was no criminal.
Now, a debt can be forgiven but it must be explicit. I understand and can accept mercy being shown to anyone. The core of my disagreement here is portrayal of justice to mean correction and rehabilitation of the wrongdoer. In the eyes of justice, the debt being paid is all that counts. If rehabilitation is a priority to a society, mercy needs to be explicitly shown,it should not be done in a way that waters down justice to where we say "you owe this much but due to the end result we will only accept so much repayment of wrongs from you",you're saying the unpaid debt is ignored,not forgiven. if there is a victim,the victim should also have a say.
I hope I wasn't all over the place with my comment. All in all, I am mostly displeased with the end result being the focus here. I do need good neighbors but not at the cost of graying-down justice.