[SoftwareMaven]

I can't imagine that, as part of the deal, updates proving that counseling is happening aren't a part of the story. I agree with you that I wouldn't let it go without having some knowledge that he is getting the help he obviously needs.

I wouldn't want to ruin a 17-year-old's life, either, but I wouldn't hesitate for a moment if I felt my family was in any danger. We don't know the relationship between the OP and his friend that might mitigate the "any danger" part.

On the other hand, kids' lives are ruined in the US (and possibly other countries; I don't have enough experience to know) on a regular basis because we want to have "justice" at all costs. Justice is important, but so is mercy. Mercy (NOT rolling over!) is, ultimately, what will progress society.

[zainny]

If a person takes such a personal, aggressive, and malicious position towards you and your family, by reporting them to the proper authorities you haven't "ruined" their life. You shouldn't feel guilty bringing the perpetrator of a serious crime to justice.

[SoftwareMaven]

If our penal system was able to rehabilitate, I would 100% agree with you. Unfortunately, given the incredibly high recidivism of convicts, I don't think that is true. Worse yet, prison appears to be a criminal training ground. As a result, I, personally, would be hesitant to throw somebody into that environment if I felt another option that could lead to rehabilitation existed.

The important piece is "another option". If it were my kid, you can bet he wouldn't he getting off easy, but I would hope for an opportunity to rehabilitate. On the other hand, if it were my kid, I would be he first to call the cops if that's what was necessary.

It's unfortunate that our zeal for "justice" has put us in a situation that we say "to hell with the people".

[jamesmiller5]

The author avoiding law enforcement leaves the perpetrator no one to blame but himself. The author shows that he is innocent of the hate that was delivered to him, which leaves only the perpetrator responsible for the crime. If the author had involved law enforcement there is a reasonable chance the perpetrator could not have made the same connection.

I think the authors intent was to show the perpetrator why his actions were unjust, where law enforcement could only punish the actions for being illegal. Of course a judge or jury could lecture him but he already knew it was illegal and inhumane, that knowledge still didn't influence his behavior.

[3A2D50]

What you've said is ideal, but it is important to remember that the degree of "justice" can vary significantly around the world. This is especially true within the US. A crime in one state may amount to a "slap on the wrist", while in another it results in many years of prison time.