That sounds like a feel-good system that would be very difficult to implement in practice. It's very different for different kinds of crimes, and nitpicking over level of victimhood is not something the law seems very concerned about. It could open up a whole cottage industry of "Victimhood Optimization" where people get very good at claiming they were the victim of some nebulous crime, and deserve a payout.
There are "victimless crimes" that are only victimless because everyone was lucky: a 3rd DUI, firing a gun in a crowded area but not hitting anyone, etc. Then there are crimes that have millions of potential victims: dumping toxic waste in a river, etc. It'd be an entire extra enigma the courts would have to figure out with every case. (I do think a big percentage of the "victimless crimes", like personal drug possession, should not even be crimes at all, but that's beside this point.)
There are "victimless crimes" that are only victimless because everyone was lucky: a 3rd DUI, firing a gun in a crowded area but not hitting anyone, etc. Then there are crimes that have millions of potential victims: dumping toxic waste in a river, etc. It'd be an entire extra enigma the courts would have to figure out with every case. (I do think a big percentage of the "victimless crimes", like personal drug possession, should not even be crimes at all, but that's beside this point.)