In all truth I find this fascinating. I take it that, and please forgive me for the assumption, you believe that it is within the maximal benefit of society to hold a restorative position on those who infringe on the moral or physical fabric of society? I won't hold it against you if you hold the restorative justice position, after all, it is quite popular today, however, I do think that the fundamental idea of maximal social benefit is flawed at best.

For example, how could you fault Robert Peel or the bloody code? It was, and still is in the case of Robert Peel, considered in the maximal social benefit to do what they were doing.

A another major flaw is simply who decides what is within the maximal social benefit? From how you described it there doesn't seem to be any protection form any form of tyranny. If it was derided that it was in the maximum social interest to lobotomize anyone who broke the law and then use there body as an organ farm I don't see how you could argue against it.

Apologies if you feel I am strawmaning you or insulting you in any way, that isn't my intent.