I think the idea is of a logic of violence in which you feel you are being harmed, but you are feeling the brunt of your own sins. This is a recipe for moral violence, of course, in that one can seize on what another has done (ostensibly...) and "hit them" with it. It's also a lot like a domestic argument when people start pulling out things the other did wrong and hurls it at them when they are angry, with the idea being that if the person "did it themselves", that makes anything anyone wants to do with it perfectly fine.

There's a lot to say about this. Partly it's founded in a deeply retributive logic, and a rather superficial one as well. It keeps frozen, and wants to keep frozen, the deeper issues concerning justice and how things are dealt with, the better to keep them formed in such a manner as to keep the "hits" available; one wishing to hit another with their own wrongdoings has little interest in any kind of progressive justice that ameliorates, restores, heals, fixes, etc.

And that, my friend, is exactly why the criminal justice system in the US founders (on the shores of real progress) but also flourishes (in the land of recidivism, failure, harm, suffering, quiet violence). No joke: these kinds of spiritual commitments are the very reason there is no real progress made in the realm of justice, even from those from whom one should expect more real justice. They remain ensconced in this kind of logic, albeit in a backgrounded, underhanded way. The price? Nothing but a mere statistic: recidivism, which after all, is nothing important. It's just more fucking crimes happening day in and day out, not to mention the specific cases of actual moralent violence in which people are "hit with their own hands", and who knows what others...

But there is more to say: it is quite fully of a piece that those who favor this kind of violence are all too ready and able to perpetrate it artefactively, in other words, by "helping along" the commission of ostensible wrongdoing in various ways. Guy torments his wife, and so tormented, she says the wrong thing (gasp). He then seizes on this and beats her -- with her own saying the wrong thing, which is from her (ostensibly). He has it on video tape, his 15 year old son films it during one of his hours long torture sessions. (It was later used in court, btw.) The critical thing here is that her "wrongness" is overwhelmingly an artefact of his massive intrusion into her being in various, and quite frankly, sadistic ways. It is of a piece, however, that the sort of person who wants to seize on this sort of thing is the very kind of person who doesn't let one side of their mouth know what the other side is doing, prompting the "error" and then seizing on it at the same time. Lost in the loopholes given by thoughtlessness, lack of reflection, and an overall violent orientation, she is trapped in a struggle with "her own hands". By virtue of these and other features, he can carry out the violence even more, perhaps even exponentially more than one can carry out an ordinary beating (which he was actually finally imprisoned for, btw.)

I term such violence either "moralence" or "errolence", depending on whether it's her saying something morally wrong in his interrogation (for example) or dropping dinner as she quakes before his awesome might (for example), respectively.