I can hardly think of any alternative other than "an eye for an eye".[/quotes]
"Eye for an eye" sounds like a pretty just system to me.
When someone infringes on another person's freedom, there must be a mechanism in place to protect that individual if they cannot defend themselves.
So why are you so hateful about zkSNACKs implementing a mechanism that extends a small protection to victims of crimes who can't defend their stolen coins anymore? Remember, there's no collateral damage against people who are falsely accused since zkSNACKs' policy does not empower them to confiscate funds or share data with law enforcement.