If there's no victim, there's no crime. And if there is a victim the legal system should be geared to having the criminal compensate the victim and not "society". The criminal should certainly pay the cost of his apprehension and trial but the primary aim of the legal system must be to fully compensate the victim in so far as that is possible.
So when I read this:
Gary Craig, 42, lashed out at John Black in a brawl in Dunbar High Street last October, smashing his beer tumbler over his victim's head, permanently scarring him across his eye and neck.I get very annoyed to discover that the criminal was faced with "a £600 compensation order". £600! I'd have thought that 60 Grand was more in order.
An X-ray taken later at Edinburgh's Royal Infirmary revealed that a piece of glass was embedded in Mr Black's neck.
The wound was so deep that Accident and Emergency medics refused to remove the shard in case they hit a major artery.
Instead, Mr Black was sent to the Western General Hospital for an operation
Rather surprisingly, the BBC posted this from Amanda Morton a few days ago:
Has the world gone barking mad?And the comments are generally supportive.
Why am I, Johnny Working-Taxpayer, paying for their crimes?
Why don't offenders have to pay the actual cost of the crime they've committed?