IMO, your proposal seems to be unnecessarily constrained. Thefts and robberies are more dangerous and offer less recourse.
On the other hand, graduated punishment is meant to prevent robbers from killing everyone in their path - if the penalty for holding someone up and the penalty for mass murder is the same (death.)
On the gripping hand, retention of criminals within the society only leads to more crime. The question here is simple: what is more important, life of one criminal or stability and mental health of many innocents?
This question was answered many times in history of the society, not to liking of criminals. This is because every society - even a fairly backward feudal one - knew that without stability their own roots will be undermined. Merchants will stop coming; peasants will be robbed and unable to pay their dues, or killed (which is bad since they are property of the lord.) In the end the lord himself will be unable to pay his dues to the king.
This sentence does not make sense to me.
Constrained means 'restricted' somehow?
My response was a little tongue-in-cheek, but I think computer virus makers have the potential to take down whole sections of the economy and cost billions, and ruin millions of lives. The punishment should be very severe for that.
Imagine hospital equipment suddenly failing, for example. Or your life savings gone.