Real Crime and Punishment

What is crime? Doing harm to another person against their will - aggression. What is punishment? Punishment is meant to be a form of restitution for the victim. After all it is he (or she) who has been harmed by the criminal activity of the aggressor. What right do we have to interpose ourselves between the victim who demands justice and his attacker? We have no such right at all! If I had dictatorial control over the criminal justice system I would immediately put these initiatives in place (short of disbanding the whole statist thing, of course!):
1. Eliminate the office of "Public Prosecutor"
2. Eliminate any code of positive laws which specifies certain punishments are to be used for certain crimes.
3. Eliminate the possibility of the defendant to posit insanity or any other motive as a defense.
So what would the result of such reforms be?
Well, most importantly, the victim would have the power to determine the harm done to him (or her) and act accordingly. My experience with life so far has taught me that people do not like being told what to do, they like to be able to apply their own value judgements in certain situations. Many Christians, for example, oppose the death penalty. But under the current system they have little say in whether such punishment is applied or not. Conversely, others who believe they have been wronged so much that only death of the aggressor would provide adequate restitution are denied their right as victims to proper compensation. The subjective theory of value applies to all property. It is for the abused party to determine what the value of its loss really was. Forgiving people might 'turn the other cheek' and request a mild punishment even for murder. More stern individuals might require the court to carry out a life sentence or a million dollar fine for littering on their land. Who is to say whether any punishment is excessive or too slight if not the victim himself! And I dare say this system could prove a better deterrent than the one we have today.
Also the most despised office in the land - the general public prosecutor - would no longer exist. This means that we would finally be free of some snob filing lawsuits for 'the greater good'. In such a case all victimless crimes would not be prosecutable. If someone happened to be doing cocaine in his own house and didn't do any harm to anyone, there would be no one with the legal power to file suit against this individual. This would make most positive laws unenforceable.
And finally motives would not longer be taken into account in trials. Who cares why a certain man killed his victims? All that matters is that he did it. Motives and intentions are always irrelevant in the case of all actions - criminal or not. It is the results and consequences that matter.
I am, of course, aware that this system is not quite viable. It is more of a illustration of how good and just a subjective justice system might actually be had it been allowed to flourish. We must eliminate the compulsory monopoly of aggression which has bound us together within some kind of enigmatic geographical or 'national' borders. Then we will really see what the Law is.

One of the greatest Lawmen of all time and historical icon of the modern Conservative-Liberal movement, Sir William Blackstone, wrote that "Law, in its most general and comprehensive sense, signifies a rule of action; and is applied indiscriminately to all kinds of action, whether animate, or inanimate, rational or irrational. Thus we say, the laws of motion, of gravitation, of optics, or mechanics, as well as the laws of nature and of nations. And it is that rule of action, which is prescribed by some superior, and which the inferior is bound to obey." Natural Law is the only Law - applicable to anyone and everyone, anything, and everything.