Punch and Urchin can be interpreted as presenting diametrically-opposed arguments regarding the utility of restorative justice. 

And neither negates the other. 

The #Discourse loves to reduce sociopolitically-minded art into generalized takeaways that double as suggested solutions to the depicted #Issues. But one size never fits all, and the cure for one individual could be the cause of the disease for another.  Even if art can claim to represent a majority experience, art can also tell stories of the exceptions to these patterned rules. 

Which explains the aforementioned disparity between Punch and Urchin. In the former new play, restorative justice saves the protagonist’s life. In the latter new movie, restorative justice seems to be the domino that starts the doomed reversal to his newfound recovery. 

Now, even without restorative justice, you could make the case that he was an inevitable tailspin waiting to happen; if it wasn’t restorative justice, another factor would’ve eventually spelled his downfall…

But we can never know for sure. Life can come down to the wrong place at the wrong time; there’s no exact science to clarify the irresolvable complexity. 

Which is why Punch and Urchin in fact add to each other in conversation, showing the difficulties of figuring out a productive rehab process for society to implement.