Should someone be charged if they commit a crime against one who has committed a crime against them.

There is currently a defense in our legal system that allows them to receive help rather than be punished this is the insanity defense which is only used in 1 percent of criminal cases and is successful only one fourth of the time that it is used. making it so that 0.25 cases would in our current system be let go. This means that the majority of the people who committed the crime would have been found guilty and punished regardless of whether or not you were the one who punished them. While the retaliating person may commit a crime of conscious by thinking about it and not being a subconscious decision most of the original crimes are also crimes of conscious. In cases where a non violent crime takes place it is very unlikely that it occurred out of anger rather they were thinking clearly. Not all violent crimes are committed without conscious. In cases of a violent crime occurring out of anger it is possible that this triggers the other person into rage where they commit a violent crime against them back. Even at a later time if it was a serious crime such as murder or rape the sight of the person who did it to you or a loved one may be enough to set you into anger to attack them. If it is not triggered by anger retaliating can also help you to prevent them from committing crimes against you in the future as they will be aware that whatever they do to you you will do back. Retaliating to some crimes can make it so that things are restored such as if someone steals something from you and you steal something of equal value you have restored your lost property. If someone cuts your flowers you can cut theirs to put them as a centerpiece for your table to recover the lost flowers. If someone purposely breaks your window you could remove a portion of theirs to fix your broken window. There are very few times where it may be unjust to retaliate against someone which would be when they have a mental illness or rage that drove them to commit a violent act which is not conscious while there are many where it would be unjust to punish someone for retaliating such as for the same rage driven actions used to defend the person who committed the original crime, retaliating to restore loss from the original crime, or retaliating against a repeated offender of a crime so that they will not repeat it. During the few times where retaliating would be unjust it does not make sense to punish the retaliater as they have already paid for the unjust with the original crime committed against them which creates a balancing effect. Punishing retaliaters sets them back to having paid for their unjust but still having received an unjust to them Punishing people for wrong doings even if not committed due to subconscious can still help them as their subconscious will make the connection that it will lead to consequences in addition having the same crime committed will connect it in their mind how it is effecting them making them less likely to opt for it. In court no matter the reason you committed the crime unless you successfully use the insanity defense which is only used in 1 percent of criminal cases and is successful only one fourth of the time that it is used. This means that the majority of the people who committed the crime would have been found guilty and punished regardless of whether or not you were the one who punished them.