It's obvious from the very first moments that this film is attempting to adapt some kind of morality play. This film may resonate with you if you're under the impression that it is the duty of the rich to trample on the poor.
Setting aside how ridiculously unlikely that it might be that one single family and every member in it would have multiple interactions with one individual, the judgments the film attempts to make against the family only make sense if you believe that the downtrodden have absolutely no volition in life.
The father's crime against the girl is that he fired her after she led a strike against his company and turned down his offer to end the strike and accept a higher paying position. After she turned him down, he fired her with the reasoning that he paid her market wages, and due to the good economy, she'd find another job. Since she wasn't keen to parlay after making bold demands, he correctly thought that she was not a good fit for his company. This is proven to be true in the film, as all of the coworkers that she led the unsuccessful strike with returned to work with no complaint, and none of them bothered to stick up for her. She did in fact get another job soon after, proving the father correct that there were other opportunities available to her. The father is not at fault for any of the further choices this woman made.
The wife-to-be's crime is that she complained to the woman's manager that the woman's behavior was unprofessional. The woman makes a condescending sneer at the wife-to-be's expense which is clearly shown in the film. The whole point in working at a clothing store is to make the customers feel relaxed and comfortable while trying on new clothes, not to sneer at them while they're clearly uncomfortable. It's obvious why she was fired, and if one complaint is all it took, perhaps it wasn't the first she had received.
The husband-to-be's crime is that he found himself in a one-sided relationship with someone that he had initially taken pity on. The husband-to-be found himself as a caretaker of a grown woman who was out of work and down on her luck. Though initially he had feelings for her, he took on the role of a caregiver for this woman and eventually fell out of love. However, he did give her money to last her for several months, as he felt guilty. I can't tell if the moral of this story is that people should stay in relationships in which they are unhappy, but people today and always have had the option to break up with someone that they're dating. Breaking up with someone isn't a crime and it isn't evil. It's actually the kindest thing you can do to a person if you don't love them. His biggest crime appears to be actually against his intended wife, as there appears to be some overlap in his relationship with both of them. However, the film frames this plot device as a slight against the woman who apparently has no volition of her own, other than to just keep making terrible decisions.
I honestly don't know what the son's crime was. There's some hints that he was rough with the woman one time, but that issue isn't really explored. Instead he steals to provide money for the woman. There's a few post-coital shots of them in bed together talking about the existence of god, so I never really got the feeling that she was trapped with some monster. In fact, the son appears to be quite tender and cares for the girl. He steals money from his father's business to fund her job free lifestyle, and even offers to marry her. It is discovered that she is with the son's child, and knowing this she willingly downs poison. At this point, the woman is the only character who has killed anyone, let alone an unborn child, so I really don't see how she is supposed to be sympathetic in any way. She takes the son's money, but doesn't wish to marry him. I really don't know what the film would do to absolve this character, nor what it blames him for.
The mother's crime is that she doesn't believe the woman's story when she asks for help at her charitable organization. The mother offers help to those in need on a daily basis, and hears all kinds of stories every day. Not only is this woman's story improbable, it's a statistical anomaly. She literally has had a life altering event with every member of a single family, while meeting them all separately. If the mother, who we are not led to believe is bad at her job, had reason to doubt her story, perhaps she had a good reason to do so.
The woman is never at any point a sympathetic character. People in film and in reality have volition. They are able to make choices, and they can reap the reward or suffer the consequences from those choices. This isn't a babe in the woods led to the slaughter. This is a woman who made choices based on her principles and apparently suffered from the choices she made. The film says it best through the father: "No one is responsible for the choices someone makes one or two years in the future." This principle is absolutely true. No one made that woman down the poison other than herself. It was her own set of principles and actions that led her to that choice, and though she may have used the family as a catalyst, she had full control of her life at every point.
It's obvious that this film is trying to make the family seem bad, and it tries to portray the woman as some kind of victim. However, at nearly every point, every family member offered her help or gave her money. Honestly, I can't believe how many handouts and fortunate kindness this woman turned down. This isn't some evil family, conspiring to ruin this woman. In the same way the woman turned down their money and kindness, the family also had principles and pride. There's an odd intermission in the film where it supposes the idea that the whole plot of the film is so ridiculous that it might be seen as a hoax. If only the writers of this film had the self awareness to realize that if your plot is so ridiculous that a legitimate plot point in it is that the whole thing is a fabrication, maybe the whole thing is a bit too vague and fantastical. What a waste of time.