If you think that the stone for stone strategy disturbs the guilt–retribution balance, then just look at the destructiveness of other methods that are applied in the society. It's true that no matter how much retribution is in place, the damage is irreversible, and truly, in such cases, we are not concerned with replacing the material damage, as we cannot do that in reality. The only solution is to prevent further cases of such magnitude. If you came to know that there was a robbery in the house next door and the resistance by the house members led to the death of one of the members (let it be a father, mother, sister etc.), and the criminal was apprehended days later, then what would you suggest about the punishment that should be given to the criminal? Would you suggest that the person should be freed at any time later (let it be even 25 years) while he intends to return to the guilt? Would you feel safe if he were roaming freely? Life imprisonment is not the solution, as it doesn't provide the required threshold to stop a considerable influx of future cases (if you really feel that the person truly intends to leave the wrong way and adopt a normal life, then there is a replacement method available).
To understand it another way, let's compare two methods of dealing: one is stone for stone (SFS), and the other is the Threshold Deficient Method (TDM), one that does not satisfy the minimum threshold for preventing future cases (by far, there is no effective way other than the SFS strategy) (the replacement method has a limited scope and is largely a way to deal with special cases).
From Is Retribution Essential?.
