There are and always have been two sides to this issue. What follows is an inquiry into issues which are integral to the cause of giving the punishment to offenders; both sides shall be represented therein, and the most plausible option shall be elucidated. Essentially, giving the punishment is considered as a moral obligation in almost all cultures and theologies around the world. It is taken as a compulsory act of reprimand, without which the integrity of the justice provider is lost, and essentially the entire process of equality suffers an emotional blow. The act of kindness is hence lost, and there surfaces an immense feeling of betrayal and anguish on part of the victim.
Conversely, the other side presents an equally convincing argument. For one, many offenders around the world do not have the exposure and luxury to understand and deal with the environment they live in. To add, an offender goes through several ups and downs during his life, which psychologically turns him into a law-breaker - so does he actually deserve retribution Though this may jeopardize the act of beneficence, but it is deemed necessary. After all, the true beneficence lies in the cure of the offender, and if this cannot be actualized at the end of the day, then the utilitarian process would have drastically failed.
The judiciary frequently ignores their offenders' wishes when they consider the appropriateness of punishment giving.