Personally, when I evaluate an Atonement theory, I look for two things:
First, that it factors in the whole of Christ's life in His saving work and doesn't obsess over the crucifixion to the point where everything else is glossed over or placed in the backdrop. After all, Christianity has always understood Easter to be the centerpiece of the liturgical calender, not Good Friday. Unfortunately, Western Christianity makes it a habit of focusing on the crucifixion to the point of nearly ignoring the Resurrection. This is not good. Our Eastern brothers and sisters don't do this and we would do much good to be like them in this matter. Eastern Christianity is much more optimistic and hopeful than Western Christianity tends to be and that is how it was in the early Church. I think it's past time to return to our ancient roots on this matter.
Second, the theory can't imagine God to be like some bloodthirsty, wrathful pagan god. That is obscene and offensive and an affront to the New Testament God of mercy and compassion, the God Who loves us so much that He would die to show us the depths of His love.
So, that in mind, the Satisfaction theories and the Penal Substitution theories are out the window. Both take a legalistic view of God as demanding a blood sacrifice of His Son. Both pretty much ignore the Resurrection and the teachings of Christ's life. Both make salvation into just being a legal transaction or even a financial transaction. So those two theories should be dismissed out of hand. All the criticism about it making it seem like God is demanding a human sacrifice is true. Even Benedict XVI made the same criticism of the Satisfaction theory.
To be honest, I don't recall ever being taught Anselm's Satisfaction theory or the Penal Substitution theory. (I never would've been taught the Penal theory as that is a Calvinist invention that is rejected by the Church.) How I always understood it is that Christ's sacrifice was one of limitless love to the Father, Who found this more pleasing than the imperfect animal sacrifices given. He did not have the sins of humanity laid upon Him, but rather became one with our sinful nature in a mysterious way while remaining sinless Himself. This ties into Christ being the New Adam Who succeeded where Adam failed (Mary is the New Eve who succeeded where Eve failed.) So already, my position is closer to the Recapitulation theory. There's nothing about a legalistic idea of God's wrath (such as in the Penal theory) or God's honor being offended (Satisfaction theory). 3 days after that, He triumphed over death, thus destroying the power of evil in the world. In this too, He reveals Himself as the New Adam Who makes humanity anew. So there's elements of the Christus Victor theory in my belief. As for Moral Influence, His life is one of perfect moral example to us that causes inner change when we meditate upon it and follow Christ.
