Should the punishment fit the crime - Part 1

Think me wrong, think me unjust. I don't think their is "motive" or excuses. A man makes a mistake, he should be man enough to pay for the crime. If he didn't want to pay the price he shouldn't have commited a crime. You know, back in the day if a man did something they took off body parts accordingly. I kind of like this idea. For the theft, take his hand. Just one! If he does it again. Both. As for the murderer, well... I have always wanted to see a hanging. Plus, for those who think, "What if he was killing a bad man?" Well then, he wouldn't be considered a cold blooded murderer now would he? Good question here, I have always thought the punishment should fit the crime. Sadly 90% of the time now days, I don't think it does.

I would give the thief the punishment of paying back whatever he stole, and community service if this was his first offense. If he is a habitual thief, then I'd lock him up for a couple of years. The murdered would get from me whatever was the highest jail time he could be sentenced to, unless it was a self defense type thing. I have a low tolerance for anyone that thinks it's okay to murder. Only in self defence would I reconsider my punishment.

They may be guilty but what was the motive for the crime? Who did the murderer kill? What did the thief steal? I don't think I could make any punishment fit without knowing all the facts