4 ms·
The aim of laws is compliance. If the low and medium fines of previous years have failed to achieve compliance, and fines eventually escalate to high, I'd argue
by NeedMoreTea 8y ago
The aim of laws is compliance. If the low and medium fines of previous years have failed to achieve compliance, and fines eventually escalate to high, I'd argue it's far from excessive. If it were excessive a much lower amount would have achieved general compliance with that particular law, would it not?
- lallysingh 8y agoOur regular human ideas for excessive don't count. There's a legal standard there. I don't know it.
- lazyasciiart 8y agoNobody does, really. It has to be defined in context of the 'gravity of the offence'. I'm sure someone could make a good argument that 1% of the value of a property is reasonable.
- londons_explore 8y agoAs a 'fine', 100 or even 200 percent of a property could be argued reasonable. 'You aren't using this property as the law intended, so you have to give it to us and pay a penalty'. If I steal an apple from Walmart, should the fine be 1 percent of the value of the apple? Clearly not.