Damages shouldn't be subjective but based on the acts committed.
Additionally, some civil offenses do come with precomputed statutory damages, but it’s not possible to come up with such a number for every possible scenario. In the case where there isn’t a precomputed number available we fall back to computing a number after the offense happens based on the circumstances at hand.
If the fine is proportional to psychological harm, it punishes the victims who admit to having a thick skin.
If the fine is not proportional to psychological harm, it makes bullying the most sensitive people too cheap.
As an analogy, consider physical harm. We would probably agree that the punishment for slapping someone should be smaller than the punishment for murdering someone. However, what happens if someone is so exceptionally fragile that if someone slaps them, they literally die? What punishment should we apply? If you say "the punishment for murder", the accused will feel that this is unfair. But if you say "the punishment for slapping", then it means that if you know that someone is fragile like this, you can practically murder them for free.
Congratulations, you’ve turned the courts into a contest between theoretical models of what an act is “worth” instead of considering the facts and circumstances at hand.
Although I'm going to say that in the legal sense we might already be handling things this way. I'm sure the judges have considered this in depth.
No, it starts with the facts and circumstances and then lenses them through the law.
> should be quite exceptional for a crime to depend on the victim's mental state
It is. Emotional damage per se being remediable in law is mostly a myth. This is why we default to actual damages; it largely sidesteps alternate timelines and the unknowable mens rea.
If they don't have different models of what happens, the case usually won't make it to the court.
Litigators will frequently bring up contrasting legal theories. But you’re not allowed to go into hypotheticals when calculating damages.
What case are you citing? Because this rings truer for popular misconception of how law and equity work.
Based on the meaning of the word threat, yes.
If someone found a small, legal "act committed = no fine" way to victimize someone to the point of suicide, do you think it should be left unpunished ?
Justice MUST be subjective.
Absolutely not. It should be punished. But if two people do the same thing to someone else, that must result in same damages.
>Justice MUST be subjective.
This is abhorrent.
The first one asked for them, the second one didn't.
The question is:
If there are people 1 and 2, without any other information (like motive) available to us, who send spiders to a and b respectively without anything else being done wrong, a and b should receive same compensation and 1 and 2 the same punishment.
If courts can prove that say 2 knew that b was allergic to these spiders and sent them anyways, that's no longer about sending spiders but causing potential bodily harm.
This doctrine is used nowadays in many places already, ie trying to do something even if you don't succeed is criminal in many cases.