Not sure how well I can express this, but will try. I guess what I am putting out here are simply ideas to ponder.

In my view, there is a difference between expediency and effectiveness, but the two are easily confused, and the differences can be subtle.

Rigid enforcement of laws is not always effective. Neither is scapegoating.

Retribution has it's place.

Forgiveness has it's place.

Some combination of the two are probably necessary for reconciliation.

There is no such thing as moral perfection, and certainly no agreement on what is moral.

However, in the western world there is some significant, though quite generalized, agreement about our stated values with respect to what we in the West view as inalienable human rights.

The pursuit of individual justice sometimes enhances, and sometimes impedes the promotion or expression of those values at a societal level. Ditto the reverse.

Finding synthesis is both nuanced and subjective. Failure to acknowledge all of the above is ultimately ineffective in either expressing or actualizing those values.

Absolutism is ineffective, illogical, and ultimately, arrogant. No one has a corner on the market on truth. Values are not fact or truth. They are values. Most of us are very selective when it comes to our notions of absolutism and the law. If we are both in full agreement with the values expressed by the law, and are also not personally injured or negatively affected by application of the law, then we are likely to be very strongly in favor of strict application of the law.

And visa versa.