Of course, but the OP was why OSA (C of S) opt for cash settlements, which to me would infer a civil action.
Any criminal prosecution would be the decision of the State prosecutor whether there is enough evidence to bring criminal proceedings.
My point, which was slightly sarcastic, is that the only method of settlement in the civil justice system is financial recompense, i.e. a monetary value is deemed sufficient. It isn't a creative process, but rather a list of injuries, emotional and/or physical, are given a figure. So, you have a system, for example, where a person loses a leg, and that has an assigned value. Aggravated damages may be if they were reliant on that leg as part of their career, or they enjoyed going hiking and that enjoyment was taken away.
Ideally, it would take an altogether different type of justice system where the person who was injured would be able to decide the punishment, at least be in a position where it would be taken into account. Although there is much debate about the evils of Sharia law, I do have respect for some aspects. I honestly can't remember where I read it or would do a link, but a man murdered a boy of about 17 years old. The family were asked by the court what their feelings were about whether the man should be subject of the death penalty, and they wanted the man to live, and he did.
From a civil law stance, it would be great to see appropriate remedial sanctions. For instance, I know a guy who parks anywhere he wants, because he has so much money, he doesn't really care about the fine. Maybe it's considered to be victimless, and probably in most instances it is, but I would love for him to ride around in a wheel chair for a day, and try to manoeuvre around inconsiderate cars, at least to get some perspective.
But like I said, the system isn't really that creative, and it's just on my wish list.