Putting Proportional Punishment into Perspective

Much has been written about how we should understand proportional punishment. A standardised sentence may, in the presence of pre-existing disadvantage, produce morally significant additional harms. Others argue that modifying a standard punishment to avoid such harm is to show leniency in light of social disadvantage. I disagree: Where the standardised sentence can be amended to minimise unnecessary additional harms at a reasonable cost, while preserving a proportionate amount of punishment, the state has a duty to make the amendment. I articulate a partial reconstruction of proportionality calculations to put proportionality into perspective. Rather than disproportionate leniency, such variation is demanded by principles of political equality and by proportionality itself, if we take seriously the principle of punishing like cases alike.