How publication retractions should be handled?

I agree with Joseph above.There's a distinction between outright fraud (claiming ethics committee approval, falsifying data) and incorrect application of statistics for example. The former ought to be reported to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) followed by a letter to Faculty Dean.

There is no one-size-fits-all answer to how retractions should impact the career of a scientist. Unintentional errors leading to retraction (e.g., resulting from erroneous statistical methods) should be treated less harshly than negligent or outright deceitful behavior. The impact should be handled on a case-by-case basis by the responsible parties.

With an alarming rise in number of retracted papers, what the scientific community thinks is the best way to handle them?
1. Should be ignored, giving benefit-of-doubt to the authors
2. Authors with multiple retracted papers should be demoted 
3. Organizations with high retraction rates should be banned from entering various rankings, and debar them from government funding for 1-2 years
4. Court trials against the faulty researchers for criminal wastage of public money

I totally agree for all the proposition.
But, the trial should be short and very efficient.
The authors should be banned of the scientific community whatever the damage created and also there political position.

The specific reasons behind each case should be considered when handling scientific publication retractions. Retractions due to new data or improved analysis that lead to a reassessment of prior conclusions should be treated differently. In such instances, publishing these updated findings as a negative result to replace the retracted paper can provide valuable scientific insight and contribute to research transparency.
 However, strict measures should be enforced when misconduct is involved, such as academic fraud, conflicts of interest, or repeated offences. Researchers proven to have acted in bad faith must face the highest level of accountability to preserve the integrity of scientific work.
 Therefore, a nuanced approach is necessary, ensuring that honest errors contribute to scientific progress while misconduct is met with severe consequences.

Publication retractions should be handled with transparency, accountability, and speed. 
State the reason (e.g., error, misconduct, duplication) openly.
Retract quickly once issues are confirmed to prevent misinformation.
Ensure the retraction is visible and linked to the original paper.
Allow authors to respond but act even without their consent if necessary.
Do not delete the original paper—mark it clearly as retracted for historical and educational purposes.

Recently, I got a retraction flag for my publication for using AI tool for improving language. In my opinion, this is complete nonsense. 

It should be handled with transparency, promptly and ethically.