The same lack of critical analysis behind your question was also missing in the responses to Lombroso’s work in the late 19th century[1], essentializing and legitimating phrenology.
[1] https://www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/the-born-crimi...
How the nuance of those laws are defined is a social, cultural, and political exercise in power.
You intentionally changed my example of an unprovoked murder of a neighbor with the intent to steal their property to some other, totally different example that has no bearing on the debate. Congratulations, you're a hack.
The question is whether humans have (at least some) consistent views across societies, or whether we are complete tabula rasa. This isn't even a serious debate anymore, clearly there are lots of consistent features that do not vary across any human society, and are even found among primates and other mammals such as dogs and whales and other social sea mammals.