I must admit I have trouble with the whole 'make them suffer - revenge' idea. It's - just not important.

First, I think that the focus should be on the victims: to give them whatever help they need.

Second, I think as Ozme that the point it to protect society. That means several things.

One is that they cannot escape. But another is that most sentences are not for life. So, as I see it, society is best protected by trying hard to rehabilitate the prisoners.
It is proven over and over again that harsh punisment (including death the sentence) does not scare people from committing crimes. But rehabilitation might stop them from doing it again, and that is what is important.

To lessen the amount of crime - and the number of suffering viticms - is much more importent than revenge.

For that reason also working for preventing crime is more important than revenge.

And finally, if we go too far into the revenge tracks, we end up becomming what we fight. We've seen draconical treatmen during the ages: burning, dismembering, impailing, starving to death - should we have those back, and how long would it be before those punishments were not only for the worst crimes?

I am fortunate enough to not be able to imagine how it feels to loose something under dreadful circumstances. And it is possible that I would think that making people suffer would help. But does it? The loss is still there.

I think there is a reason why it is the judges meeting out punishment, and not the victims. You cannot expect the victims to keep an even head.