I think that's absolutely and cynically correct. For example: there is a concept of parking tickets with fines. The fines are set to discourage certain behavior

I think that's absolutely and cynically correct. For example: there is a concept of parking tickets with fines. The fines are set to discourage certain behaviors while also not being cruel and unusual. Some people will never park "illegally" while others consider parking tickets to be the unfortunate risk or consequence of how they live their lives and do their jobs. The same is true for all penalties, period. This cynical calculus should be separated from how we feel about the organizations that commit things that result in fines. It's really easy to hate on banks and believe that every fine is justified and should actually be way bigger. Pitchforks and burning down the barn, ya know? But someone somewhere decided that calculus of appropriateness based on a variety of factors, and it is the lowercase-p political process to push for changes based on outcomes we see. But the pendulum swings both ways. China is an example of a country where if a company goes against government rules it can be dissolved, its leaders arrested and thrown in prison, based on criteria they have calibrated politically. Or in some other countries, you may be beheaded for social infractions. Not trying to reduce this to absurd (but real) logical extremes, but highlighting that this is precisely the difficult balance folks try to find, and our sense of proportionality is often affected by the current popular conception of them as an industry or as an individual company/person. I.e., just as many people hate on banks and think they should be punished higher, they turn around express complete disbelief at "unfair" fines and laws that are broken by innovators that run faster than regulations allow (read: tesla, uber, airbnb, etc). Sometimes we collectively feel fines are justified, sometimes not, sometimes too high, sometimes too low. Your calibration may vary.