Final answer:
The appropriateness of fines imposed on Juul depends on aligning them with the purpose of the corporation, the principles of accountability, deterrence, and the constitutional safeguard against excessive penalties. Fines should reflect the seriousness of corporate misdeeds while being fair and focused on promoting responsible corporate behavior.
Step-by-step explanation:
In evaluating whether the fines imposed on Juul are appropriate, it's important to draw from the purpose of the corporation as discussed in case analysis 1. Fines have a multifaceted role; they aim to punish the corporation for wrongdoing, deter future legal violations, and protect the public interest. In a case where corporate actions could have adverse health effects, as implied by the directors' statement on smoking, fines should reflect the seriousness of the misdeeds.
The appropriate level of fines must consider both the direct harm caused by a corporation's actions and the more abstract goal of ensuring corporate responsibility. Point 21 from our reference emphasizes the importance of holding corporate executives accountable, not just the faceless entity. This accountability reinforces the deterrence effect. Furthermore, as point 25 argues, limiting corporate lobbying and enforcing campaign finance rules enhances corporate governance, ensuring that corporations do not wield undue influence that could diminish the effectiveness of fines and penalties.
Finally, drawing on the constitutional principle that 'excessive fines ought not to be required' suggests that while fines should be significant enough to act as a deterrent and signify wrongdoing, they must also remain fair and not be disproportionately burdensome. This principle helps maintain a balance where fines serve to correct and guide corporate behavior rather than solely to punish.