[shoo]

I think I see what you're getting at: punishments or penalties for offences that are arguably disproportionate to the crime.

On the other hand I think there is a gulf of difference between "3 strikes" laws and punitive damages being awarded against a company for an arguably frivolous lawsuit.

The former will disproportionally target people who are relatively disadvantaged, e.g. people living in poverty or drug addicts, and ruin their lives.

The latter (in this case) targeted a multinational corporation, with the damages being around 0.01% of its annual profit or less. McDonald's can survive that. Even if a person or two in the chain of command get fired, there's a gulf of difference between losing your job and getting locked up for 25 years.

[lagadu]

> an arguably frivolous lawsuit.

I know you're not talking specifically about mcd coffee suit, but there's nothing arguable about that one; because there's still some measure of belief that it was frivolous here's a quote taken from the wikipedia article[0]:

> Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for 3 weeks, provided by her daughter. Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...

[thinkloop]

> punishments or penalties for offences that are arguably disproportionate to the crime

This is not incompatible, the school of thought still wants to achieve that.

"this crime is minor and deserves a minor punishment of level 2 suffering, what's a good way to inflict level 2 suffering on this individual"