That is not a valid argument in a voluntary arbitration system… why should I accept punishment “beyond what is just” in order to be made an example of? Why is it my job to be the whipping boy to “send a message” to others? Any system of “deterrence” is necessarily unjust.
Courts don’t represent people. Even the State’s courts - which do represent the State - bend over backwards to divest themselves of all appearance of “representing” anyone since they understand that a court is supposed to be impartial.
I hate to be a sour grape but you really need to tighten up your thinking. You make lots of assertions but you offer little insight.
In a moral social order - that is, a society where systemic double-standards tend to be minimized - punishments emerge from “case history”, that is, from the customary punishments that have been found to work in settling disputes.
Pure gobbledy-gook.
Clayton -