That's a fair sentiment, that a forced apology demonstrates power, and that even if the words are insincere, the lesson of the demonstrated power is real enough.
But there's still a problem with it, and it is highlighted by what these girls did. Their apology is a glancing non-apology. Forced to apologize, they used the "apology" to, in effect, make the people they were apologizing to look small. Trouble is, the ones being apologized too will look even smaller if they come out and start complaining that the apology wasn't "sincere". (Well no sh-t, it's not sincere! It's a forced apology. Forced apologies are by definition insincere!)
So, what then? Do judges spend their time parsing the words of carefully written apologies to decide if they were provocative ENOUGH to not count as apologies? Or do they just throw up their hands in disgust and say "You GOT your apology, now don't bother me again!"
The latter, of course.
The better answer is to not offer apology as a route, but just nail people to a cross every time. Only if they spontaneously come forth with a sincere apology that convinces the accusers might the accuser then drop the charges. This leaves the power to accept the apology or not in the hands of the wronged party. The LAW should just hammer away, unless the private parties decide to settle and pull the things away from the law.
As it is, the forced apology here made a mockery of the ones being apologized to, but was carefully enough worded to make them look ridiculous if they complain about it.
Don't force apologies. Punish.