The ideal response to the so-called crime committed by the narrator’s aunt in “No Name Woman” would be to point out the sexism of the situation. Neither the aunt nor her family should have been punished because of her actions. As an autonomous, independent person, the aunt was free to make her own choices. What she did with her body in her personal life was her business. She did not break a law. She was not a criminal. She did something that, to many, appears commonplace in America today: she had sex someone she was not married to.
Another ideal response might be to discuss the moral and ethical complexities of this choice. If someone were in the aunt’s position, they might think about what they would do. Such a discussion, it’s important to note, need not lead to sexism or misogyny. People of varying genders get married and have affairs. A thoughtful person should be able to confront the difficulties of such entanglements without resorting to gender biases.
What the villages did was not thoughtful or unbiased. They had no right to slaughter the aunt and her family’s livestock or vandalize their home. Their attack on the aunt and her family would probably be considered the crime by someone speaking from the view of contemporary America, where there’s a generally sharp awareness of feminism and women’s rights.