The restrained vs. the unrestrained

In our last class, someone brought up the question of whether or not "the restrained" are truly better than the "unrestrained" on the basis that restrained may have not committed a crime but they still harbor the desire to while "the unrestrained" may have committed the offense but feel a deep sense of remorse. While each of us can probably find a situation where this seems true. It seems simple enough to argue that it is not because in the case of "the restrained", no one and nothing but the soul within in the "the restrained" is effected. Furthermore, the guilt that is placed on the soul of "the unrestrained" after a given crime would likely equal or surpass the conflict of "the restrained's" soul. In terms of the reading, it is important to mention that Aristotle would argue this for "the restrained" are an example of a the rational parts of the soul being in control which is key to becoming virtuous. Though this soul is not acting out of virtue, the action is a step towards virtue, likewise much of book two centers on this idea of moral virtue being established by continual practice, further proving the importance of "the restrained" to remain so.