Matthew 5:39 - Dilemma of enforcement of secular law

I had a discussion with some friends from the law VCF a year ago where we discussed the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:39 to 'turn the other cheek'. A girl in our discussion brought up the dilemma of  whether Christians can enforce secular law against their wrongdoer. A friend of mine answered the dilemma by referencing the works of Martin Luther in his work titled Secular Authority. In Secular Authority, Martin Luther argues that the secular sword/government is introduced to protect Christians. Christians should thus have no qualms about doing violence in the name of the secular rule. Luther’s conclusion is that the two governments (secular and church) must be kept separate, since they have completely different functions. The church makes men just and good, government keeps the temporal peace. The church clearly serves nobler aims.

I was wondering though whether the principle of 'turning the other cheek' may extend beyond simply desisting from assuming personal action against one's wrongdoer and relegating the meting out of punishment to the state. Perhaps there may be instances where one should forgo the right to vindicate himself with state punishment against the wrongdoer. One such example is in the story of Les Miserables, where Jean Valjean, a former convict, ran off with the silverware of the Bishop Myriel who had housed him when all other innkeepers had turned him away. When the police caught Valjean, Myriel exculpated Valjean of his crimes by pretending that he had given the silverware to Valjean and pressing him to take two silver candlesticks as well, as if Valjean had forgotten to take them.

In my opinion, it can be just as vindictive to use state instruments to exact revenge. I think that a better approach to interpreting the words 'turn the other cheek' would be to qualify the extent of he wrongdoing that is inherent in the words "being struck on the cheek" rather than a delineation of the role of who is to exact punishment on the wrongdoer. Perhaps being struck on the cheek could be purposively interpreted to mean inflicted wrongdoings which are not too severe in nature? Whereas there might be circumstances where the wrongdoing is of such a severe nature that a Christian is justified in seeking retribution personally or by recourse to state instruments.