because they care more about redemption for the villain that for justice the actual scales are never balanced.
Also, if I could just make one more point about the Hook/Emma situation post-Robert’s murder.
One of the hallmark tropes of the Savior is their search for justice. They tend to be pretty concerned with it which is why Savior mythologies can be read as political commentaries. So many times the hero/Savior is one of the “little guys” who must stand up to some sort of authority figure who is imposing totalitarian rule if on a grand or cosmic scale.
Think Buffy. She didn’t just go up against Vampires. Her arc enemies were a High School Principal and Mayor (s3); a covert military operation (s4) and a god (s5); all figures that can be seen as imposing total and absolute rule.
Think about Luke Skywalker. His enemy was, yes, Darth Vader, but on a larger more complex scale it was the Empire and the Emperor. The heroes were called rebels because they stood up to the monolith that was this “Empire.”
Voldemort placed his agents inside schools and the Ministry of Magic and even had his own high level “cabinet” officials like Malfoy.
While Frodo’s main antagonist was the pure evil figure Sauron, there’s also Sarouman who was trying to corrupt his fellow wizards from inside the system to bring them all under the Eye.
Superman goes up against Lex Luthor who is a businessman with a mega corporation.
Think about the show Gotham right now. Bruce is going up against a Court of Owls which is, more or less, a demented Congress who secretly rule Gotham without anyone being the wiser.
Or if you want a real world situation, often times real world events of heroes/rebels taking down some sort of totalitarian regime or governmental body get mythologized. When the story is retold it’s cast in mthyological terms and symbols. Mr. Smith goes to Washington, and all that.
My point is that the Hero/Savior is always a fighter for justice. It’s part of their archetype. So for Emma Swan to be so blase about petty and senseless murders from the man she loves, to wave off the victims and care more about “well you’re not murdering anyone now” makes her character seem hollow, disingenuous, and silly. And while writers do not have to be a slave to the trope and its established characteristics, taking away or adding a new one shouldn’t hurt the character.
For example. The writers twisted the trope by making Emma 1) a woman and 2) a mother who’s deepest connection was to her son. Yes, good. This helped the character because it grounded her in the narrative that was 1) female centric and 2) heavily concerned with mother and daughters/children
But making Emma 1)the Savior and 2) a sheriff (the mundane version of her mythological role) and then having her not care about a lot of murders from individuals damages her character.