[jakehop]

Many legal systems allow limited retribution, if it can be seen as proportional to self-defense.

That said, there's an overarching idea that one shouldn't try to "get even" by lowering oneself to the other person's level. Proportionality as a legal concept makes it legal to defend yourself, but illegal to escalate the threat.

E.g. one can use fists against fists, but if B stabs A to death, it will be hard to claim it was in self defense, since there is no obvious proof that A was looking to murder B by punching B to death.

If it is possible to refrain from violence and use the justice system to replace it (by having B press charges against A), then that ought to be a more civil outcome.

One could argue that the reason to have a legal system is so that B does not have to go around preparing to punch back, but can spend her time doing more productive things and that is how we end up with a civil society, with a high level of productivity and freedom of expression, and a minimum level of violence.

[barrkel]

Of course, if one person is physically stronger than another, then more tools are required to respond proportionally; tools that may make an accidental over-retaliation more likely.

While society prefers civil solutions to physical conflicts, civil solutions take longer, often require social, organizational and financial capital, and have less certainty in outcome. Society overall is better, but individuals are often not as well served.

The system is stacked in favour of the more powerful at every level, shocker.

[closeparen]

I cannot imagine the police taking an interest in a case like that, let alone a DA prosecuting it, absent other factors making it politically important.

[benzayb]

Clearly explained. Thanks!