3 ms·

This is an interesting argument, but I've heard it said that the 8th Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines could make such legislation difficult to impleme

This is an interesting argument, but I've heard it said that the 8th Amendment's prohibition on excessive fines could make such legislation difficult to implement. United States v. Bajakajian[0] is in play here. > Thus the Court declared that, within the context of judicial deference to the legislature's power to set punishments, a fine would not offend the Eighth Amendment unless it were "grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant's offense". A $15,000 speeding ticket is absolutely disproportional to the gravity of the offense of speeding, unless you find a way to argue that the offense is greater because of the net worth of the person committing it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#United_States_v._Bajakajian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United...

soneil 7y ago
I don't think anyone is arguing that the offense is greater - I think they'd argue they're putting the "proportion" back in proportional - making the fine proportional to the income, so that it has more equal impact.
- Brendinooo 7y ago
  I understand, I'm just saying that there is text in the Constitution that says you can't do that. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." If speeding is an equal offense for all people, then fining someone more for it would be excessive. I saw a source that believes it's a solvable problem, but any conversation about this issue has to solve that problem.
  - soneil 7y ago
    I think we'd just have to have a chat about the definition of what's excessive? Fining me $1m for something would be excessive, fining AT&T $1m for the same thing would be trivial. "excessive" is relative. The GPDR is an example of what I mean; where fines are written as €x or y% of revenue, whichever is higher - which is intended precisely to make fines proportional. There's little sense levying the same dollar fine against Google and my local corner shop - a figure that Google wouldn't notice would destroy the other.

soneil 7y ago

I don't think anyone is arguing that the offense is greater - I think they'd argue they're putting the "proportion" back in proportional - making the fine proportional to the income, so that it has more equal impact.

Brendinooo 7y ago
I understand, I'm just saying that there is text in the Constitution that says you can't do that. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." If speeding is an equal offense for all people, then fining someone more for it would be excessive. I saw a source that believes it's a solvable problem, but any conversation about this issue has to solve that problem.
- soneil 7y ago
  I think we'd just have to have a chat about the definition of what's excessive? Fining me $1m for something would be excessive, fining AT&T $1m for the same thing would be trivial. "excessive" is relative. The GPDR is an example of what I mean; where fines are written as €x or y% of revenue, whichever is higher - which is intended precisely to make fines proportional. There's little sense levying the same dollar fine against Google and my local corner shop - a figure that Google wouldn't notice would destroy the other.