I know this is a distinction relevant elsewhere in this thread, but I don’t think it affects the point I made.

Only in the most legalistic sense.

How so? Is the difference between having to repay Lisa when you've caused her harm and having to pay the state because you did something criminal that hard for you to understand that you actually consider it a matter of "legalistic" quibbling?

Would you accept a jurisdiction where, instead of going to prison, you could just pay someone a bunch of money after you've raped or performed some other obviously criminal act against them?

When the assessed damages are way out of proportion, that's in the realm of "making an example", i.e. punishment.

Who are you quoting?

None of what I've written in this thread is about the correctness in how damages are measured, I don't see the relevance of your comment. To me it seems like you're confusing suffering with punishment. Debt is commonly painful, but it's not a punishment.

The purpose of paying damages is to substitute someone else for harm you've caused. This is altogether another purpose than punishments. Paying damages is a reparation, punishment is based in another set of principles.