I've been thinking about something that Daniel Quinn wrote some time ago--that "tribes" don't have the same concept of punishment as "civilization" does. Tribes, he says, try to remedy the wrong more than to punish the wrongdoer.
Tribes, of course, do not have crime at all. None--by its very definition. Before the anthropologists dredge up examples of rape, theft, or murder, let me explain: Tribes don't exist free of harmful conduct, but their reaction to it is fundamentally different. Tribes have tort.
Crime, by its definition, is action against the state by an individual. Tort, on the other hand, is action by one individual that harms another individual. This is the accepted legal definition.
Criminal "justice" is intended to punish the individual for violating the authority of the state, and as such the result is usually to lock up the criminal as an examplary, deterrent, or incapacitating measure. Criminal "justice" has absolutely nothing to do with righting the individual victim of a crime. Our criminal system is intended to strengthen the state--it is a positive feedback loop that supports hierarchy.
Tort, on the other hand (if we ignore the recent and ill-advised jurisprudence involving punative or exemplary damages), is intended to compensate the individual victim for the results of the wrongful act. This is a negative feedback loop, supporting stasis.
So, from the perspective of hierarchy vs. rhizome, perhaps we should be a bit less critical of tort claims. Tort is, to borrow the classic phrase, the "once and future king."