[riskneural]

In the insurance industry, if you are the victim of a crash you may lose your no claims bonus. The situation is not just as simple as a victim of attack being a victim.

Wouldn't it be the case that, for example, those in the drug business are far more likely to harm their competition than their market?

[mentat]

For what types of attacks is it OK to "take away the no claims bonus" for fair and equal protection (and scrutiny) by the law?

[riskneural]

If the goal is to prospectively keep the peace, then the monitoring should be directed towards those most likely to break the peace. I think that is rather orthogonal to fair and equal protection.