|
>Wow, I strongly disagree. Our approaches diverge on virtually every case, as far as I can tell. That was a poor wording on my part. Make that where they diverge most strongly. >My approach would be to apply the exact damage to the aggressor that they applied to the victim, except where the victim forgives all or part (for monetary "damages" or some other consideration or reason). I'm going to assume your talking about assault. If I'm wrong, sorry. In any case, we can't just let them settle it with a fee to cover damages. The aggressor demonstrated themselves a threat to the Public. Depending on the circumstances, the aggressor will need to spend some time in jail, with a psychologist, doing community service, reporting to a probation officer, et cetra, or most likely a combination of the above, for the protection of society. If there was material damage in addition to that, it is not a criminal matter and can be settled in the way you described. >As far as I can tell, your approach (along with the vast majority of existing legal systems today) requires sentencing or damages to be decided individually by a third party, rather than by the parties already involved, which seems inelegant. As the previous example illustrates, this is only true for criminal matters. |