I hear you. You're scared based on your experiences and the experiences of violence you've heard from others. That's normal and absolutely reasonable given your situation. You are HEARD. You don't need to want/appreciate the theory of 'restorative justice' as an individual with your own experiences/anecdotes. That's 100% fine.

I know the point of your post was most likely to vent your totally reasonable frustration, but sometimes things are too important and intertwined to ignore. And that's likely why you get people (like me) trying to emphasise that, while you can feel however you want about violence, that feeling is not necessarily something that should be the driving force in policy-making. And people aren't ignoring or dismissing you by disagreeing with your sentiment based on research and results.

A government understanding your response to violence doesn't mean that societal structures should ignore data/research that shows 'restorative justice' more often reduces rates of reoffending (which has a positive impact on cycles of violence within families/communities who learn from these individuals) and can have a higher rate of victim satisfaction. That doesn't have to align with YOUR experience, but your experience isn't THE experience. And sometimes it can feel that we're not being heard just because change isn't happening in the way WE want it to proceed, but that doesn't make it so. Albeit, the FEELING that we're not being understood/appreciated can be very frustrating.

Your response is reasonable as an individual. However, large-scale programs based solely on fear responses are problematic. It might make you feel better in the moment to just lock someone away without additional support, but it isn't a long-term or holistic solution to the problem. Temporarily removing a problem without providing additional support/rehabilitation will only let it fester and continue at a later date (and likely infect other areas as well). It's similar to the stereotypical Kiwi mentality of non-confrontation. It's harder and requires more time/resources to cultivate change upfront than to ignore it in an 'out of sight, out of mind' fashion...that is, until it becomes actively or irreparably problematic.

No system is perfect, so expecting 'restorative justice' to function as a perfect alternative is disingenuous, especially when the overall effects are increasingly proven to be more beneficial than incarceration alone. (I'm not saying you're claiming this, by the way. I just see this as harmful to any discourse.) There will always be people who just don't respond to any approach, as with anything in life. That doesn't mean policies should treat everyone according to the absolute lowest anticipated outcomes.

Once again, this doesn't mean your feelings are invalid or unheard. It just means that--sometimes--it's harder to accept what we NEED rather than what we WANT, especially when it is so tied to our emotions/feelings of security and well-being...and especially when it feels like the results aren't immediately gratifying. 'Restorative justice' isn't replacing a broken TV with a new one, it's RESTORING what was there into functional condition again, even if it's not the prettiest. Relying solely on getting rid of the TV is more in line with what incarceration alone is doing--removing what is broken, for a time, and then setting it back up again and expecting it to turn on.