I like the fact you've listed the perpetrator's family. While having no effect whatsoever in the gameplay, it does a lot to make the player think about the weight of the decision and the inevitable effects of it on the lives of others.
The game is thought provoking for sure and that I enjoyed. The ending was a bit of a let down as I was hoping for something a bit more elaborate. Either way heres some food for thought for you or anyone wanting to pursue a concept like this further.
Morality is always a hard subject to handle and I feel the game's stance, which basically states that sparing a human life is always good compared to taking it, is a far too simplistic approach. Some would argue sparing the life of a serial killer that has killed over a hundred people is not moral and in that person's eyes the person making the decision is not a good person at all.
Also the available decisions are both very drastic and in some cases seem like total overkill for the alleged crimes. The player has very little information to go by and has no way of determining even if the final statement for the perpetrator is true or false. If I was in a real situation making these decisions with this amount of available information, I'd quit the job.
The real problem, with having the game make the judgment call between if you are good or bad, is the fact that even if there was actual simulation, if the player had more information and the available range of sentencing was wider, the outcome would still be based in the morals of the person writing the simulation and the morals of the society he or she lives in. So even if the game tells me I am a monster, that is only a fixed viewpoint at the matter.
Also sentencing is typically based on law which is most of the time (but not always) based on ethics of the society. So maybe the question should not be what the punishment should be, because that would be dictated by the crime, but instead, with more information available, which of the alleged crimes is the perpetrator truely guilty of?