>What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ? Should a debt ordered by a court due to deliberately taking action

>What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ? Should a debt ordered by a court due to deliberately taking actions that harm another be treated differently than a debt occurred through a consensual transaction? If so, could the courts be given more power to seize resources (not just money) from the one owing the debt? There are a lot of things that I would consider immoral to do to recover a debt that results from a consensual transactions that I wouldn't view as immoral to do to recover a debt incurred by criminal actions.