> There's a clear difference between deterring a individual and putting a amount so high it will get taglines so people will pay attention and think that could

> There's a clear difference between deterring a individual and putting a amount so high it will get taglines so people will pay attention and think that could happen to them as well if they were to commit a similar crime and get caught. That difference is not clear to me. What sort of deterrence to an individual would not also lead others to think that could happen to them as well if they were to commit a similar crime and get caught? - or, to consider the contrapositive, if it does not invoke that thought in others, why would the convicted be deterred from trying again? The fact that they were caught once does not mean they will be next time. Furthermore, I dispute the idea that deterring people from committing a harmful act, before that harm is done, is not a justifiable goal for a society (note that this does not imply that I must therefore endorse the cutting off of thieves' hands.) Quite often, the perpetrator cannot compensate fully for the harm done, and it is always better if it were not done in the first place. We should note that what is being deterred here is Oberlin's decision to fight the case rather than accept its obvious responsibility and compensate the plaintiffs for the damage it did. Personally, I think this is a net benefit to society, and if it makes entities in similar situations think twice, so much the better.