An Eye for an Eye

I guess I'm finally going to get into libertarian criminal activity and punishment theoretics. I hear the famous quote by Gandhi, that "an eye for an eye makes the world blind," and I can't help but think that he was wrong in application, but not principle. Sometimes it takes small steps to rid society of violence, rather that one large leap. Gandhi has nonetheless been a motivating factor in the lives of many who seek peace in the real world.

When a theft has occurred, the plunderer gives restitution, though hardly "fair." Paying taxes to keep criminals locked up is simply not effective in deterring crime, and has the economic consequence of encouraging the incarceration of people to make a profit. Confess, thief! Russian roulette? I finally disagree with professor Block!

I would instead suggest that the opposite action be the reaction. Fear and its reciprocation is, I believe, what Gandhi was more concerned for, that a violent reaction would be excessive reaction to a nonviolent action. In roulette, there is the potential for loss of life, and it is known upon consenting to the activity. In theft, violence is a risk, though not inherent, especially if one steals from another when they are away from the property to be stolen. Would the initial return in value doubled the original loss not be sufficient? Would it be objectively sufficient in returning potential death to the petty thief?