So that raises the question, if you are guilty of a crime, e.g. shoplifting but you get punished like a e.g. murderer. Are you innocent or guilty? If you argue they committed a crime, so don't deserve sympathy, then it follows that we don't need to look at the fact if punishment appropriate. We could then just throw people in jail and do away with much of the court system, because with the complexity of the law, you can say with nearly 100% certainty that someone would have committed a crime at some point, so they all are guilty.

Proportionality between crime and punishment is a central pillar of a fair justice system. The extrajudicial financial punishments that the article and the OP allude to, are in direct conflict with that.

Like one of the previous posters said, daemonizing the guilty is what keeps this system from being fixed.