1) Punishments get scaled by the judged likelihood of guilt, i.e. judge says there's a 65% chance Bill is the killer, Bill gets 65% of the punishment.

Interesting idea... of course, there would have to be some lower cutoff, else if I were judged to have committed a murder with 20% probability, I would have to serve 5 years. There might be a place for these probabilities, but I suspect it would be in the appeals process or some such.

2) All punishments become monetary fines varying by judged negative utility, i.e. Judge says murdering Joe was worth x negative utilons, Bill is fined to outweigh damage done with good.

"Make the punishment really fit the crime," in other words.

This could be conceived; however, "an eye for an eye" has a bad reputation in jurisprudence as a principle. I am personally of the opinion that the law should be there to (1) deter criminals, (2) provide an outlet for the vengefulness of victims and families, not to "put things right."