I find the victim retribution theory to be the most appealing. If a person harms

I find the victim retribution theory to be the most appealing. If a person harms another person, they should be repaid for what they went through. This theory is most appealing to me because it puts the victim’s feelings and experiences first. In a situation where a crime has been committed (especially a violent crime), the victim should always be considered first. 2) While I think a system of punishments fitting crimes would be ideal, it is logically impossible. There is no way to perfectly execute a system where every criminal has the same crime committed against them. America has found a system that uses the same punishments for each crime, but at different levels of severity (for example: years in prison) which is the closest we can realistically get to punishment fitting the crime.
3) It is unreasonable to suggest that Bob should be sent to prison or fined for a ridiculous amount of money. The crime that needs to be punished here is breaking and entering. The picture is irrelevant because he has already committed a more (for lack of a better word) important crime that should be addressed first. Bob should be given the typical punishment for breaking and entering. 4) In a situation where Bob kills Sally’s grandmother, she should be able to decide his punishment. Grandma is no longer around to make the decision, and as far as we know she is no longer affected by it. The only person who is continuing to live with the repercussions of the crime is Sally, therefore Sally should decide what a fitting punishment is for the person who killed her grandmother and caused her so much emotional pain.