"Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen." -George Savile, first Marquess of Halifax. I don't know if everyone gets the joke (if you want to call it that). No, they weren't trying to find justice for the horses. People were punished for crimes in England, and elsewhere, not for that. They were punished to act as a deterrent, for future crimes. And that's the only reason people are punished for crimes (though those in power might sometimes want us to think otherwise).
As I've said, he was talking about deterrence, not punishment. Much of our legal system though: blame, deterrence, incapacitation, and the modern idea of rehabilitation, overlap. And not retribution, but perhaps blame, has an important role in our legal system. There also is the interesting concept of sentencing. It has nothing to do with punishment, because it relates to things that come after the crime. But it still could relate to mens rea. That is why is it still important. When you show lack of remorse once convicted. When you try to hide your crime. Sometimes when you just fail to offer an apology, to the victim. You get a much stiffer sentence. And when you are guilty of incest, harming the vulnerable or the handicapped, you get a stiffer sentence still. You usually get life imprisonment. It's part of almost every felony, life imprisonment. Even though it rarely is used. Except for what I just said. But sentencing cannot be part of the statute. It is always at the discretion of judges and juries. To otherwise would violate double jeopardy, ex post facto. To say nothing of the first principle of justice. The last time the SCOTUS ruled on sentencing guidelines was in United States v. Booker, 2005. There have been a lot changes ideologically on the Court. But sentencing guidelines are rule of law and in the Constitution, as I've said. So they cannot be changed. Especially for the vulnerable.