illu45

The meerkat stream of you typing and talking at the same time definitely has a You've Got Mail vibe to it.

That's interesting. Do you have any ideas of what "justice" would have entailed for your client in that situation? What do you think would have been "just" in that situation? It strikes me (as a complete outsider) that the law is always in a precarious position of mediating the "eye-for-an-eye" instinct that we feel when an injustice has been done.

For instance, I expect that, in that particular case, most people would agree that explicit and exact retribution (eg. punching the guy in the face and stomping on his chest) would probably be going to far into vigilantism to be called "justice". So, would a lengthy prison sentence for the assailant be more reasonable? But isn't this just making him suffer for the sake of suffering, even if through less physical means? I suppose the solution might be in teaching the assailant just how deeply he has hurt the victim and stopping him from repeating his actions in the future, but I'm not sure this is what most people have in mind when they talk about "justice".

That's very interesting about compensation and donations -- thanks for your reply.