Actually, there has been a proposal that moderates switch parties. So, moderate democrats would become republicans and vote for the most "liberal" republican candidates in the primaries and moderate republicans would become democrats voting for the most "conservative" democrat candidates. The end result would be more moderate candidates competing in the elections.

Then, there is also changing the way districts are drawn. Make it a legal requirement that they be as contiguous and compact as possible while following geographic and governmental boundaries and then turn over drawing the districts over to a non-partisan non-governmental company.

The American political system is made up of the American people. If you want to fix things, fix the primary system and the gerrymandering so that politicians don't have to pander to the extremes of both parties.

Really? Exactly how old are you then? BTW, if your answer isn't implausibly old, you don't know what you are talking about or are just naive about history.

Of course the magnitude of the offence matters.

"The law does not concern itself with trifles" - usually referred to as 'de minimis' in laws. With most laws, you need to commit an offence of a significant enough seriousness to even be an offence. Once you get past that point, there is also the broad principle of proportionality, i.e. let the punishment fit the crime. Then you factor in intent, state of mind etc.

Speeding and parking illegally can lead to risk to others, so even relatively 'small' offences can have large consequences, and that's why they're taken somewhat seriously, beyond the actual consequences (which are usually, though not always, pretty much nil). Charging an electric car in a stationary parking spot? Not so much.

The correct response here was for the officer to inform the school, and then they could decide if they wanted to file a civil suit to get their 5c back. Invoking criminal theft just makes an ass of the police officer and the law.

Wow, you really don't have any clue as to what actually happened, do you? Guess you will keep drinking the ignorance flavored koolaid you have been drinking.

No, he is being facetious in commenting about the level of restitution and fines which you are then taking as a literal comment. And, no, actually, they don't agree with you which is why restitution is not limited to the value of the item damaged.

Changing horses in midstream, but whatever.

I don't care one way or the other. He brought it on himself. He made his bed, so let him sleep in it. If he didn't want to get in this kind of trouble he wouldn't have engaged in the illegal acts from which his situation has resulted.

Would you be surprised if he were ordered to pay the cost of replacing the window which had an original cost of $200.00 with an impact resistant window that costs $1,000.00 and the cost of installing the new windows?

It wasn't a single consultant, it was a consulting group, and what exactly did the consulting group do? That cost may include 100 engineers and programmers plus hardware and software plus data center costs plus plus lost revenue. You are again engaging in a straw man by substituting your opinion of what was required for remediation for what the judge determined was required as remediation and justifiably included in restitution.

He admitted to his intent. You are arguing that someone found with lock picks and admitted he was intending to use them to commit burglary should not be charged with possession of burglary tools.

Conspiracy: He planned and worked with his fellow citizens to commit an illegal act.
Criminal: You freely admit that he broke the law and give no valid reason why it is unjust. Then, you state a patently false statement akin to "driving a car is not the action of a criminal."
Premeditated: You freely admit that he made plans and committed acts to ready his participation in the crime.
Harm a corporation: owned, operated, and employing Americans. That you don't like the corporation and/or the politics of it's leaders doesn't mean that it "exists only to harm Americans"

You mean like the how some conservatives are engaging in DDoS attacks on HealthCare.gov because they see as harmful to America?

How about this one: "I was only inside her for a minute" for statutory and other forms of rape.

Why would I go to jail? You have made the parameter such that if I pay for replacing the window, all is right. Conversely, you are also suggesting that the subject of the submission should not have gotten probation but should be in prison.

You do understand that crashing the economy hurts the very people you say intentionally crashed the economy, right? Or, do you think they live outside the economy?

You are using a straw man argument. He is being fined for the act he committed as provided by law. He is not being fined for 1000 windows, just the 1 he broke. You just don't like the amount of the fine. If he had broken a $300.00 window in California, he could be fined $10,000.00. You are upset over the amount of the fine and are arguing he is being fined for more than his single act.

Don't forget about the felony murder rule. That one is often a shock to people involved in a crime.

If one is committing illegal acts and gets caught, one could very well end up with years of wage garnishment. See, there are penalties for doing things for illegal purposes.

The fines are not used for restitution nor are they intended to be used for restitution. Fines are part of the punishment. They are in addition to any ordered restitution.

All you people comparing this to breaking a window and saying how the "fine should be the replacement cost of the window" don't know the first damn thing about the law. If one throw a brick through a window, one might have to pay restitution of the replacement cost of the window, but onewill also face possible jail time and a fine.

Let's say someone throws a brick through a $300.00 window:

• In California, one faces up to one year in jail and/or $1000 in fines.
• In Washington, one faces up to 5 years in prison and $10,000 in fines.
• In Mississippi, one faces up to 1 year in jail and $1,000 in fines.

That is on top of any restitution the court orders. And, if you don't believe me, look it up your damn self.

So, a drunk driver who is arrested but didn't cause a wreck or do any damage should not be fined anything, right? And, that is "the way it works. In any legal system, anywhere", right? Wrong? Maybe you should rethink what fines are. Fines do not provide restitution for the crime. They are a punishment. A fine is in addition to restitution.