Beware crossover law!

This idea of victims, or victims' families, having their say in court before sentence is passed is all wrong, and confuses the distinction between civil and criminal law. If you, as an individual, want your pound of flesh for some wrong that has been done to you, you use the civil law. The criminal law is all about society protecting itself against those who have broken its rules. It seems a hard thing to say, but who the victim is, is (or should be) of no real importance. Consider - two men, A & B, both go out with the intention of breaking into what they believe to be empty houses. Both are misinformed, and both come face to face with the householder. In each case there is a struggle during which the householder is severely beaten, and later dies. The circumstances are such that both men are charged with manslaughter, and convicted. The cases are as identical as could be, and I would imagine most people would agree that both men should be punished to the same extent. But now let's look at the victims - call them X & Y (sorry about this, but I always enjoyed algebra at school). X was a thoroughly unpleasant character, estranged from his family, divorced from a wife who detested him, and with no children. Y was the perfect family man, with a wife and two children who adored him, and are now devastated at their loss. Should the one who killed Y be punished more severely, because his death is mourned so deeply? Turn it round - should the one who killed X be treated more leniently because nobody cares that he has gone? Makes no sense, does it?