Sure but thats not the point I was trying to make.

I am less interested in the harshness of the crimes than in the defintion of the crimes. This to me is much more important.

Where the actual sentencing becomes important (and potentially problematic) is when you are defining too much as a crime as it forces you to go even harder on other on harder crimes.

The feeling of justice isn't an absolute system it's a highly relative one with some upper and lower bounds. There are plenty of examples of female victims of violent men who feel vindicated by being able to tell the violator what he did to them or to understand why he did it. Just as an example of a punishment which is less deterministic in outcome than many of the rules we see in the US.

And one more reason: deterrence. Supposedly, would-be criminals are deterred by seeing others get jail time. Depending on the crime, that purpose is rarely accomplished as well.

Deterrence exists, but all the research (in the US) suggests it's caused by certainty of punishment, not magnitude of punishment. A two-week stint in jail that's almost guaranteed will do far more to deter criminals than a ten-year stint that almost never happens.

Unfortunately, it's much easier to crank up the penalties and posture as "tough on crime" than it is to make sure police are actually closing cases.

I think that falls under retribution.

Based on outcomes, I'd say "Recidivism" is the fourth R.

Specifically, the US tends to be obsessed with the first R, not just in jail terms but also how the law is applied. Especially with "values"-based laws.

Not only is that true, but the first R is also the one providing the least value to society, aside from sating the vengeance-lust of generally uninvolved parties.

When I said values I didn't mean "value" as in "benefit" but moral values (which in the US were heavily shaped by Puritan Christianity). Vengeance is a part of that, reimbursing the victims for their suffering by punishing the offender (and thus making them suffer "in return").

As an example, in capital punishment allowing specifically members of the families of the victims to sit in on an execution is solely based on vengeance. Neutral observers, sure -- to document it. Relatives and family, sure -- to allow them to say goodbye. But the victims' involvement ends with that of the judges. If it weren't for the aspect of vengeance, the execution would be "not for them", it's just carrying out the sentence.

Why is the retribution not equal, for example with murder?