Are you saying that as aggreement or disagreement? The court is already to settle dueling theoretical models, and it will still settle them by considering facts and circumstances. It should be quite exceptional for a crime to depend on the victim's mental state since someone who spends years learning how to accept the world as it is shouldn't be legally penalised.
Although I'm going to say that in the legal sense we might already be handling things this way. I'm sure the judges have considered this in depth.
> court is already to settle dueling theoretical models, and it will still settle them by considering facts and circumstances
No, it starts with the facts and circumstances and then lenses them through the law.
> should be quite exceptional for a crime to depend on the victim's mental state
It is. Emotional damage per se being remediable in law is mostly a myth. This is why we default to actual damages; it largely sidesteps alternate timelines and the unknowable mens rea.
Are you European by any chance? In the English speaking world, courts are typically adversarial and work by two competing interpretations (a prosecution/plaintiff and a defence/respondent) being fit to what happened.
If they don't have different models of what happens, the case usually won't make it to the court.
Although I'm going to say that in the legal sense we might already be handling things this way. I'm sure the judges have considered this in depth.