The Problem of Constant/Compulsory Appeal to Scientific Evidence in Promoting Public Policy

Specifically Regarding a Certain Issue

Hypothetically speaking, let's consider that:

"It has been found that some people who commit heinous crimes (out of pure sadism: without complex contexts that could justify them) show a capacity for resocialization."

In this hypothetical scenario, according to legitimate scientific evidence, disregarding the falsifications made by subtypes of pseudoscientists, such as a likely majority of sociologists, for example.

So, even if science achieves this result, it's not fair that someone who commits a heinous crime should have the right to reintegration into society simply because they showed good behavior during their incarceration and even afterward. After all, it's only fair that they remain in prison out of respect for the victim(s), their family, and friends... This is the most important point: an individual who commits a heinous crime, beyond all possible ambiguities, should not be imprisoned "only" because of the crime or the action, but also because of the person or being who was victimized. In other words, also "out of respect" for the victim, their memory, and those most tenderly associated with them. This is more of a moral and philosophical question than just a technical scientific one. Or perhaps the problem lies in the focus many place on: the capacity for resocialization rather than the severity of the crime and what is truly just, a kind of meta-justice: about what is just for the sake of being just, without falling into what seems to be a technicistic trap, at the very least, suspicious...