I certainly agree with the general "no victim, no crime" philosophy, but do not feel this to be a warrent for reckless behaviours. It's not good enough no-one was placed into danger this time.
Unfortunately, law itself isn't a simple thing. But the simpler it is kept, the more resilient it can be, and the faster it can adapt.
Any "punishments" warrented should, IMHO, be scalar to both the type(s) and seriousness of the crime. I do generally agree with the viewpoint made in other places that commonly "punishment" isn't the best way to deal with most issues, instead favouring education and example-based rehabilitation methods.
When it comes to law itself, if we set our constitution correctly, there's no real requirement for any particular law - especially as we shall have no borders in which to enforce it for reasonable future - anything required to adhere to should be in there(and is in most draft copies circulating). That's as simple as we could possibly make it?
It's then just a matter of first general concensus of the direction to proceed for various infractions, and distance persued. Once that's decided, we can then work out how best to make that happen. We'll worry about actually making it happen when that's more relevent. But I feel it'd make more sense to focus efforts in guidlines and techniques to deal with various situtations that arise rather than begin binding extra restrictions into those explicitly or implicitly stated in the constitution.
What really should require attention however, and we're a long way away from that, too, is individual facilities operating policies and procedures. These obviously should need to be in the guidelines of our constitution, but would effectively handle what you do/don't do on that facility, and how you do/don't do it. And what happens otherwise. These also obviously require to be handled on a per-facility basis, dependant on facility type/purpose.