You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
Giving criminals empathogens and having them face the effects they had on their victims, is a just punishment and could lead towards lower recidivism.
There is no guarantee that the assailant would associate those feelings with punishment. States of distress, woe or despair are linked to the context under which they are experienced. It may well be that the criminal does not have sufficient context to experience an "effective" extent of grief.
It is irrelevant if the criminal sees it as punishment or not. Punishments don't deter psycho/sociopaths.
The point of giving criminals empathogens is to force them into a state of empathy and remorse. They should be given psychotherapy with the empathogen to keep the experience in context.
I would rather feel empathy for someone whose family I have killed than many other things, e.g. life sentence, limbs burnt off, ...
Even if it's most just, it's not practical because you can't force someone to empathize with those harmed.
your premise should be a however and not a but
Empathy means that you feel for another person because you know exactly what they are experiencing or have experienced, unless the criminal is psychopathic. Making the criminal experience something akin what the victim has will therefore generate empathy.
But this nature of punishment doesn't appear, at face value, to have the deterrent effect of the removal of liberty.
Being an effective deterrent is a key part of a good punishment.
A personal feeling of guilt is often an effective deterrent.