I'm gonna bite here.
All my life (and I'm no youngster) I've grown up believing anybody accused of a crime would have the right to be judged by his/her peers, and either found guilty or not.
This option was not available to Goodwillie, following the decision made by the Procurator Fiscal that there was no chance of obtaining a conviction in this case.
The only reason this ended up in a Civil court is the fact that the 2 accused were professional footballers at the time, and obviously earning a lot of money. If this had been you/me or Joe Bloggs - it would never have got anywhere near a court.
IMO it's wrong that anyone should be able to profit financially from a decision made in a civil court. I'm certainly not saying that is what happened in this case, but it's wrong that there should be a financial incentive for anyone to bring a case to court in the first place.
Having read quite a lot about this case (even before Goodwillie signed for Clyde) it seems that a major factor in the decision of the judge was the fact that the claimant was a lot more articulate than the defendants (in particular Goodwillie). This should not have been a factor IMO, and creates a dangerous precedent.
And my final point - once anybody has been convicted of an offence, and completed their punishment (whether it be a prison sentence, or a financial penalty as in this case) how are they supposed to support themselves (and family ?) afterwards - unless they continue with whatever trade they are qualified in? There have been at least 2 cases in recent years that I can think of in England where players have continued their careers after serving prison sentences for causing the death of innocent people.