3 ms·

Yeah though even then it was connected to the coffee revenue, right? I feel like this school of thought is also the one that ends up with things like "3 strik

by rtpg 10y ago

Yeah though even then it was connected to the coffee revenue, right? I feel like this school of thought is also the one that ends up with things like "3 strikes and you're 25-to-life"

shoo 10y ago
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.
- thinkloop 10y ago
  > 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"
- lagadu 10y ago
  > 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_Restaurants#Burn_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...
hx87 10y ago
25-to-life is indeed excessive, but if some people had 25 year lifespans and others had 2500 year lifespans, "3 strikes and you're 10-25% of your lifespan" is actually quite reasonable.
ajmurmann 10y ago
Only because the fine is based on your income doesn't mean it has to be draconic. Quite the opposite. They can actually be less draconic than fixed amount fines. If you earn minimum wage a speeding ticket can be a complete disaster. If you are a tech worker you will barely notice the ticket.

by rtpg 10y ago

Yeah though even then it was connected to the coffee revenue, right? I feel like this school of thought is also the one that ends up with things like "3 strikes and you're 25-to-life"

shoo 10y ago

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.

thinkloop 10y ago
> 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"
lagadu 10y ago
> 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_Restaurants#Burn_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...

hx87 10y ago

25-to-life is indeed excessive, but if some people had 25 year lifespans and others had 2500 year lifespans, "3 strikes and you're 10-25% of your lifespan" is actually quite reasonable.

ajmurmann 10y ago

Only because the fine is based on your income doesn't mean it has to be draconic. Quite the opposite. They can actually be less draconic than fixed amount fines. If you earn minimum wage a speeding ticket can be a complete disaster. If you are a tech worker you will barely notice the ticket.