I think that's where we differ. It seems to me that despite all the advances of our societies, we really have not figured this one out. I get the impression you're reasonably satisfied with the idea that people will always do bad things and that we should be satisfied with locking them up afterwards.
Personally, I think there is room for improvement in our approach.
Here's why I think it's interesting.
http://www.som.yale.edu/faculty/keith.chen/negot. papers/CohenNisbettEtAll2_SouthCultureHonor96.pdf
If you take a look through crime stats closer to home you also see how things like murder rates can drastically differ from location to location.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/664845.stm
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/12/14114316/6
The most obvious thing you could point to would be the relative poverty levels. However, it raises the question of why other people who live in the same circumstances don't also commit violent crimes. That approach also seems to lack an effective mechanism to explain things like murder, assualt, etc.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/12/14114316/6
And just to reinforce the point that domestic abuse can be thought of as a cultural phenomenon:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/ipv.txt
Just going from those stats, you get a sense of how a 'culture of honor' approach could explain those trends and possibly offer a solution.
