|
|
|
|
|
|
by theptip
2609 days ago
|
|
|
This is the right way to frame the question. It's pretty obvious that the purpose of such disproportionate punishment is to discourage everybody from breaking the rules; you can't just look at the individual that got caught. If one is going to make an argument for any specific level of punishment for this offense, it should be based on the expected total cost/benefit across the entire population. |
|
|
Of course you can. Legal systems must be proportional to everybody. The non-existence of collective punishment is one of the pillars of Democracy.
That's not saying that the fine shouldn't be larger than the offense (of course it should), but proportionality must be maintained at the personal level for everybody.