It is extremely difficult to get the ultimate balanced justice for any kind of offence because every case is different. The book can only categorise them, set the punishment for each category and ask referees to place the offence into the most suitable category.
The goal is primarily to set the punishment to 1. protect the safety of players and 2. make the game fair by rebalance the impact of the offence. Though in recent times maximising the participants' financial benefit has crept into the top priorities and sits somewhere between 1 and 2. Removing triple punishment for DOGSO and downgrading sanctions in general is a good example of where we are heading.
For me, a red cards offence punishment is a sliding scale. At one end the player should bear most the punishment and very little punishment to the team, VC for example. At the other end the team should bear most the punishment with very little punishment to the player, DOGSO for example. I don't see any fairness or balance in being able to replace a sent off player for a DOGSO that the offending team has benefitted so much from. However I think it is fair that a player can be replaced for a VC incident when ball is out of play. The team sees no benefit for this offence and offending player should take all/most of the punishment.
There are going to be edge cases and specific circumstances that can negate this logic and that is why it is not easy to formulise an entirely 'safe' and 'fair' system.