The punishment depends on the "crime" doesn't it? To what extent does someone who exposes themselves to undue risk deserve to be punished? Violated trust means what,  a secret told, a cheating partner, a lying politician? Perhaps before the punishment we should consider why we put our faith in them in the first place. It is a risk position with some kind of reward we value attached. If someone invests, they have to be prepared to lose their investment totally so would be the same for trust? Hard to blame a tiger for biting, it is in its nature and those who choose to trust are nudging the nature of an individual. Some are better judges of character than others which is why some will fall for a con while others do not. If you know it is a con and still take the risk, it is hard to blame the conartist for doing exactly as expected. 

People want people to act like themselves even though when they themselves act poorly, they call for understanding and leniency in punishment. Do they extend the same to those who 'trespass against them' ? 

Trust, responsibility and freedom of decisions bring up some interesting conflicts.