What good does that do anyone? How does that make a net-improvement to the world? How does that "payment" work, exactly?
The victims' right to sadism should not trump society's right to reduced crime in the future. What we do to prisoners today increases recividism, increases crime.
The idea that a victim would feel better by knowing that the perpetrator is suffering is exactly revenge by proxy.
Nothing like the good, old reductio ad absurdum. Two can play that game, but it prevents any meaningful discussion.
Let me simplify it then, with no logical fallacy: If harming those who commit crimes is a good thing, why not do it more? Why not make it worse? And who gets to decide how much is enough?
Because proportion is a good thing, too - and is pivotal for the whole concept of justice.
> And who gets to decide how much is enough?
The same instance that decides what is and what is not a crime. Ultimately: society, in one way or another. "Implementation details" depend on the era and the civilization.