The punishment should fit the crime. Do you agree?

Retributive justice is a theory of justice that considers punishment, if

proportionate, to be the best response to crime. When an offender breaks
the law, justice requires that they forfeit something in return. Many
opinions are divided on the topic of retributive justice, it is due the
spectrum of crimes that are punishable and are committed daily across
the globe. The victims and severity of the crime also play a major role on
the sentence charged. The severity of penalty for a misdeed or
wrongdoing should be reasonable and proportionate to the severity of the
crime.
This ideology of the punishment fitting the crime is a rule that has been
abided by for thousands of years, dating all the way back to the ancient
Jewish culture quoting in its law of Moses the punishments of "life for life,
eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Many other
documents reflect this value in the world's cultures. However, the
judgment of whether a punishment is appropriately severe can vary
greatly between cultures and individuals. A retributive system must
punish severe crime more harshly than minor crime, but retributivists
differ about how harsh or soft the system should be overall.
There are copious reasons as to why the punishment should fit the crime.
It will cause less re-offenders. If a criminal commits a crime because they
were forced to for financial reasons, under pressure from a gang, for
revenge, because of a psychological condition etc. and they are released
from prison after their sentence without any thought to their
circumstances, they are likely to re-offend.
punishment does fit the criminal in the sense that every accused person is
tried in court before being locked up or sentenced to being locked.
Therefore, the punishment is catered/tailored/wound around the individual
situation,circumstance,psychological state/position of the criminal and
customised accordingly.
The punishment may be standard but leniences are made if the jkudge
thinks they need to be put in place, and the time period of the sentence
that criminals must serve is also decided by judge and jury for each
specific case. However, different punishments may suit different criminals;
a different form of retribution may be called for different people.
If a criminal is a masochist then s/he will be elated by fierce/violent
interrogation methods and punishing him/her with standard painful
means, will prove futile or counterproductive.
They will enjoy having their hands cut off, or being beaten or derided and
so on.
Despite these previous arguments there are conflicting views, what
exactly is the justice system supposed to do about the situation even if
they do know everything about it? Directly intervene in every criminal's

personal life? Keep them all in prison until society has improved to the
point where they won't be given a reason to re-offend?
Changing the punishment isn't the solution. Social services, doctors and
psychiatrists, the people in Government responsible for conditions getting
this bad, along with the criminal themselves who made bad choices in
their lives, all have to work together, make sure they do their jobs well
and not try and do each other's jobs. Feeding someone's psychological
problems, whether or not the person thinks of it that way, can only
damage them. The pleasure they feel is self-destructive, so enhancing
that pleasure furthers the cause of their destruction.
The criminal should be punished only in so far as it is necessary to
compensate everyone who has been deprived of something because of
the crime. The criminal should be made aware that they owe something,
what and who they owe, that they are going to pay it back whether they
like it or not and that taking it from the person will only result in them
having to compensate the person again. Anything more is a waste of time,
anything less means that the work isn't done yet.
By owing a debt I include non-material debts such as health and
psychological damage, actual lives, time wasted etc. I also do not mean
that I think the criminal should pay with their own phsyical health, life,
time etc. because this doesn't actually lead to anybody being
compensated, just to more people suffering.
In summary, the compensation should fit the debt, not the punishment fit
the criminal.
Overall, I feel that the punishment should not always fit the crime, as
crimes range over a large spectrum and shouldn't be labeled in the same
category. However crimes I feel should be fully analyzed from all aspects,
ie. The criminal, the situation and the victim involved if any, before the
punishment is given. It is a very taboo subject and should solely come
down to the actual crime that has been committed.