I feel like I'm crazy reading all these comments. We're looking at an 8 year old kid who got abused by everyone in her life, then groomed by an evil god into isolating herself and not asking for help, then mind controlled by a different god to go insane over her love and hurt Raul.
Like if we're saying she needs to redeem herself, for what? What decision did she make that was wrong? The last time she was even in control of her own actions was when at the age of 8 she decided to sacrifice everything and give up control of her life to save Raul. She's been a puppet ever since. What could she have done better?
Like what are we saying. We're getting mad at the gun for being fired. She didn't choose this. Free her. Save her.
A lot of people like, even obsess over the idea of retribution, the only thing stopping them are laws that at least try to enact some kind of fair justice, aka 'regulation' that acts to keep human nature in check.
If that wasn't the case, human history wouldn't be filled with endless cycles of violence. Often all it takes for such cycles of violence to come to an end is for one party to go, "Well, I'm sort of justified in taking revenge because X party did this and that to me, but I'm going to be the better person and just let it be."
I'm not saying the 'revenge' in such cases isn't 'justified', or that sometimes practical concerns about perpetrators repeating their crimes isn't an issue. But a lot of conflicts on a personal, community or societal level could really just be stopped if you don't take your 'justified' revenge.
But more to the point of this conversation, the reason why it doesn't happen is because all of that is usually just excuses anyway. Retribution is ultimately a more primal need. As humans we just choose to invent moral constructs to justify it rather than choose to not do it, especially when there is no more practical reason to.
Victoria for example here, whether she has repented or not, whether she deserves to be punished or not, is no longer a threat to Raoul. She's no longer a threat to anyone. It actually doesn't matter to the world, to anybody, except Raoul. And then only in how he feels pretty much. And for that part, she has already spent the better part of the series crucified alive with bugs eating her inside out, unable to die.
There is really no moralistic, practical or legal argument for, at the very least, just letting her go free (which I'm sure most would regard as 'forgiving' her). Only a primal reason. I can appreciate at least that argument if it was made, especially when this series is all about unapolegetic, raw revenge. But nobody seems to want to here when actually articulating an argument. Still clinging to shaky moral arguments for the most part. TBH, on that basis I don't have as much of an issue with commenters who just say they hate her and leave it at that. At least that makes sense.