The victim writes that she desires not a further treatment of the issue publicly, for that would force her to relive the pain in her mind again and again.
For any of us with traumatic events under our belt, this would be totally understandable.
It is only with consent by a victim that conciliation procedure is the option. The aim is to be reconciled and for the damage caused to be made good.
For victims, the motivation would probably be the very avoidance of publicity and undesired limelight. And going to court. Thereat, prosecutor and conciliator are to see that the procedure be the genuine and free choice by the victim. The content of it will be kept a secret.
In a civilised state ruled by law, criminal procedures are not intended to totally destroy a person’s life.
Rather, it is using an appropriate measure of force and clarity that this should never be repeated again, hoping for the best.
As far as penal power is concerned, this definite case is solved. Are we sure we can claim that Tiit Ojasoo has not been sufficiently affected by the criminal procedure and clauses in the conciliatory agreement?
For some reason, victim, prosecutor and conciliator all agree that the penalty is enough.
Meanwhile, the issue also is about the limits on public condemnation. One thing to state that the deed was a total disgrace and never to happen again. Another thing to almost declare an individual unworthy to dwell among us. Where will we go too far, perhaps to border on a mob after wild justice?
True: difficult to imagine a violent one at helm of a theatre known for its lecturing about morals. Equally true: bad indeed to hit another person. Even so, in the given case we might try to think it over, how much condemnation we’d need to pile on top of the criminal procedure completed.