I believe that in order to deter criminals from committing crimes, they have to stand to lose far more than they stand to gain by committing the crime, for example, a person who steals money should have to pay at least five times the amount they stole if they are caught.
Obviously you have to be more careful when you are dealing with things such as murder or rape, because those atrocities should never be inflicted upon anybody, no matter what they have done wrong. Also there is the whole matter of wrong convictions as well, a person who is wrongly convicted of stealing can still go on with their life after their punishment but you can't bring a man back to life after you have wrongly executed him.
"If justice is to be done." What, exactly, is that?
The mere "eye for an eye" thing never made sense to me, other than perhaps as a parental thing when dealing with very young children.
For people in society, when one chooses to upset the status quo and commit a crime, what necessary logic would say that "only the same thing will be done to him"?
As far as making the punishment severe enough to be a deterrent, there is much debate over that; over even if it's possible, at all.
In the end, I'd say that the criminal should not only expect "only so much punishment." He choose to disturb things; he should not be surprised if they end quite disturbing to him.
If we're going to utilize the golden rule it ought to be updated a little. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, but rather take two from the perpetrator for every act against the victim. Thus the perp is blind, while the victim lives on with the pain the perp inflicted upon 'em, but still one good eye. Overly simplistic, I'd admit, but there's a lot to account for, and if we're going to nitpick then I'm going to have to be here all day.
In order to realise his/her mistake, he has to suffer the same way which he forced his victim to. This would not only let him feel he is wrong, it wil also develpo a fear in the heart of other convicts. In singapore, the only justice of wiping out crime, is HANGING the convict.
So we should show them the same courtesy and hurt them more than they hurt the victim. The only problem with that is that there are sometimes innocent people who get convicted of crimes. So to hurt the criminal you would have to hurt innocent people yourself just like the criminal. Being that that is the case i would say judicially no but the question asks should the CRIMINAL suffer greater than the victim and the answer to that is a resounding yes. If you know the suspect is guilty then you have every right to hurt them back more than they hurt you.
But it doesn't fix anything at all. What good does it do to inflict suffering on someone for no reason other than "he did it too"?
We should focus on rehabilitating criminals. If rehabilitation is impossible, remove them from the rest of society, but why do we need to cause more suffering than that?
Or as an inevitable aspect of incapacitation (i.E. Imprisonment) to protect the public. Or as part of restitution (making amends).
Causing suffering to someone just because we are angry with them is immoral. Granted plenty of people do this. Most of us including myself have at least engaged in tit-for-tat insults, although much less now that I'm an adult.
But it is still wrong. The government should not base sentencing on revenge (or retribution). The goals of the criminal justice system should be deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, and restitution.
Think of it like two kids playing Legos together. What if one kid knocks down the other's Legos? Is it going to fix everything when you knock down the other kid's Legos? All you get is destruction and two crying kids. I believe getting a criminal to mediate with and understand the victim (or someone close to the victim) as well as their mistake, and having them pay reparations through a combination of jail time and community service or service for the victim (if the mediation is successful) would be more constructive than just "an eye for an eye". Of course, this is dependent of both sides willing to mediate, which is not necessarily going to happen, but it would offer a chance to better someone who may have been predisposed to crime through, for example, low income urban areas. It isn't a universal option, but it is better than hurting everyone involved.
At the end of the day, both of the kids should just work together to rebuild the fallen Legos.