[APBaer]

Let me see if I understand this:

If you're a big company and commit an horrendous multi million dollar fraud of widows and orphans, you are protected from the persons you defrauded because the Court says the punishment has to be proportional to the actual damages.

But, as we learned from the Court last week, if you're a poor dumb crook, who swipes a few CDs three times, the Court says the punishment of life imprisionment does *Not* have to be proportional to the actual damages, under the three strikes laws.

So an individual is not protected from the State to the same extent that Dewey Cheatem and Howe is protected from an individual.

[BruceS]

If you're a big company and commit an horrendous multi million dollar fraud of widows and orphans, you are protected from the persons you defrauded because the Court says the punishment has to be proportional to the actual damages.

No. You can be sued for the multi million dollars you got through fraud and made to pay every cent of that back to the widows and orphans. This decision just says that the jury can't then decide they don't like you and fine you 145 times the actual damages.

[headsonpikes]

You're just a libertarian extremist, expecting justice to be rational.

;^)

[FreedomCalls]

But, as we learned from the Court last week, if you're a poor dumb crook, who swipes a few CDs three times, the Court says the punishment of life imprisionment does *Not* have to be proportional to the actual damages, under the three strikes laws.

Theft of a CD is not a felony and therefore would not fall under the "three strikes" rule. However, using a gun to take a CD from someone is a felony and would fall under the "three strikes" rule. If you use a gun, the implication is that you will kill the person if he/she does not comply. Under those circumstances, life imprisonment in exchange for the very real threat of killing someone is highly proportional.