it's a true story??

Dude Telscak, you also fail the logical construct, and employ a distorted false simile.

A rapist, a murderer, a criminal, often attacks an innocent, not with the intent to punish or even to repay a former crime or offense with a street justice solution. A criminal often attacks randomly and with more force and grevious conduct than would be considered fair under the eye for an eye rule.
The repayal you rant against naming it the same as the former criminal conduct is not in fact the same, but a higher form of conduct based upon prior determinative guilt and the ideation of a lesson to be delivered or a wrong righted, as well as a preventative measure even if the latter is not wholly effective.

Therefore, your comparison used quite often in a modern elitist culturally normative declaration falls far short of correct equivalency. It is the easy, lazy and false explanation for a slightly more complex analysis that is required to correctly interpret the various aspects of the two mentioned human interactions, one being the original criminal conduct, and the second being the post guilt response and punishment phase.

In the modern context, an arrogant persona declaring a higher understanding and speaking from an assumed kinder cultural mileau claims a superior composite of justice and therefore the conclusion you yielded without actually analyzing the subtext of the comparatives even to the basic point of intent, winding up with failed interpretations. This elitist, culturally acceptable attitude yields wonders for the personal feelings of those employing it's shoddy outer shell, yet says far more about their actual lack of ability to analyze the basic sets of human interaction and determine a level of judgement good or bad based upon those occurrences.

The reason much of this discussed conduct occurs to criminals post crime and guilt phase is exactly as outlined above. In a layman's world the common phrase is " they deserved it ", and in as little a formal sense the movie goers cheer when the bad guy " gets what they deserve ".
To expect or to even argue that a payback style of justice is any more cruel and unusual than a standard incarceration run is quite ridiculous in many circumstances. Their concurrent nature in the scenarios referrred to in the postings is admittedly harsher than either of them singularly, yet a separate example of each should be given as a choice to see which actually falls under the darker side of justice based upon personal choice. One can start at a lower criminal conduct, and work ones way toward more severe crimes and find personal answers differing.

For instance: Crime of theft, $250.00, choose; 1. Incarceration for 3 months in jail, and fines paid. 2. Eye for an eye method, have $250.00 extracted from you in fine form or immediate labor, probably a day or two.
Many will find themselves in this case taking the eye for an eye justice, which is obviously less harsh than the standard justice system so often supported by the " don't do it or your as bad as the criminal " types.

Instance two: Crime of aggravated assault, choose; 1. Incarceration for 1 year 2. You get assaulted in the same fashion you delivered it.
Depending up on the severity of the assualt, many would choose #2 again, realizing they would recover from the assault much more quickly than the full year in jail.

number three: Crime of rape and murder, choose; 1. Incarceration for the average 7 years here in the USA 2. Get raped and murdered
Obvious here as well, is the choice would likely be #1, as it is the lesser of punishments. When #2 is supported even in the justice system, an inmate of the same variety is often employed as the unit of delivery, delivering the lesson many agree with, "understand what wrong you have committed", know what you have done.

In all this, a few things should be clear. In instances 1&2 , the criminal justice system delivers as least the equivalent of an eye for an eye, and often much harsher than this. Does that make the justice system " As bad as the criminals? " In your logic, it should, but then you've never thought about it, but merely repeated the same lame mantra declaring if you do what they did you become them. Far more, you should apply the same logic to the first and second instances, and come to just as harsh an answer. Instead, the likelihood that you support the former two is high, having again never considered its actual realities.

Thinking beyond the expressed simpleton attitudes of the generally acceptable cultural mores would help those claiming superior morality and intellect toward passivity and claimed justice through restraint to actually understand the world they indeed do live in and why others they encounter have what they view as misconstrued ideas and conceptions of right and wrong, even as they definitively carry their own set of conflicting ideations untouched by personal analysis and reflection.

When a criminal attacks an innocent with no intent other than the original crime, and a person seeking justice for that action attacks back in the same manner, not an innocent, but a person considered by many to be derserving of the lesson of repayment, they are not in fact the same thing, nor does one become the other. In order to be equivalent, that attack must be upon another innocent, not considered deserving of any retribution within the systems played out rules or broken results, or upon the street. Saying they are the same, by avoiding the easily noticed depth of the actual differences surmised with little thought or effort does not negate the reality of their differing existence.

Do not be hypnotized by your own lack of thought or clarity, or by the words of others whom presume to tell you something everyone whom is civilized should just " be aware of".