In every human society in history, there have been people who choose to rob, rape and kill. There's no pleasant way to deal with such people, but it is the role of the state to deal with them, or you have anarchy. It isn't the role of the state to prevent "emotional damage", "bad wives" or "bankers".
The point of the question (which is an interesting question regardless of who asked it) is that we should challenge what the role of the state is. We definitely shouldn't blindly or unquestioningly accept that the state is there to do one thing or the other, to deal with robbers and not bankers, because "that's the way it's always been" or something. That is how states attain power over citizens and we end up with things like the scandalous overreaching surveillance revealed by Snowden et al.