The Appropriateness Between Punishment and Criminal Act in Criminal Legislation

The study addressed the Appropriateness Between Punishment and Criminal Acts, as the criminal legislator, in safeguarding freedoms and interests, must maintain a balance between the requirements of such protection and the rights and freedoms enjoyed by individuals. Similarly, proportionality must exist between this protection and public interests represented by public order, which imposes restrictions on individual freedoms through the definition of crimes and punishments. This balance is achieved when necessitated by social imperatives—specifically, the necessity of protecting society as a public interest that itself holds constitutional significance. The connection between crime and punishment is evident both at the legislative and judicial stages. In modern criminal policy, during the legislative stage, the legislator defines punishments guided by the harm caused by the criminal conduct and the dangerousness of the offender, thereby prescribing penalties proportionate to the gravity of the act and the criminal liability. Similarly, in the judicial stage, criminal justice policy relies on excuses and circumstances outlined by the legislator within the legal framework to determine appropriate penalties. It is widely accepted that suitable punishments are those proportionate to the criminal dangerousness or the material gravity of the criminal act. This dangerousness is inferred from the harm resulting from the criminal act, the degree of the offender’s culpability, and their varying circumstances.