ANOTHER QUESTION about the ending, this time from a moral etc perspective.

In terms of morality as well as LEVEL of punishment that for instance, in vengeance (see also vigilante themed movies), even if the culprit say WERE to go to ACTUAL prison, depending on what the conditions are and sentencing, well... Besides the fact that it would be seen as just and who knows, maybe they will take care of him and whatnot but...

We obviously see the broken down and suffering Gomez at the end of this movie when SPOILERS it was discovered that Morales was the one who imprisoned him. But...

If say the police did that, besides the fact that the LAW STATES SO, what would be the ACTUAL difference, would he also be seen at the end broken and beaten down after living a quarter of a century in solitary confinement?

Basically, condition and morality wise, is legal prison really BETTER than an improvised vengeance-oriented one as seen here?

And also...

Does this have any bearing on the fact that Morales tells Ricardo Darin's character to "Get out of his home" angrily after he probes why he has allegedly "forgotten" the whole case, even if by Morales' admission it was "25 years ago". That he forced him out to reduce the risk of him discovering such a secret? And why couldn't Darin's character just say "OK sure, to each their own" in understanding and move on after Morales was like for the 4th time "it was 25 years ago!"? And how did Morales like build a prison IN HIS OWN HOME like that and no one apparently notice?