FUN FACTS : “Proportionality: The Legal Ruler That Forgot Its Units”

“Today, I invite you to marvel at one of law’s most cherished illusions: proportionality — the principle that solemnly promises balance, yet defies human comprehension.”

Proportionality is the legal system’s polite way of saying, “The law promises not to overreact… unless it’s in the mood.” It’s a principle of fairness and justice — used by courts to assess whether a restriction on your rights, or an action taken by you or them in the name of law, was just annoying enough to be legal, but not theatrical enough to trigger a constitutional crisis. 

It is a doctrine that asks:

• “Was this necessary?”
• “Was this suitable?”
• “Was this the least intrusive way to ruin someone’s day or life?”

It is one that checks whether the legal system — and everyone in it — remembered to pack a sense of scale. Spoiler: it often forgets.

Born in the meticulous halls of German administrative law — where even the coffee breaks are scheduled with precision — proportionality has since gone global. 

In theory, it’s about balance. Examples...

• Did the police response match the protest?
• Did the punishment match the crime?
• Did the data collection match the actual risk?
• And did your action — yes, yours — reflect the severity of the situation, or was it just a legally sanctioned overreaction dressed as civic duty?

The Scale That Forgot Its Units

“Justice was served… on a plate of vibes, with a side of interpretive measurement.”

Proportionality is the kind of word that sends law students into existential spirals and makes seasoned lawyers reach for their third espresso. 

Why? 

Because it’s not a rule — it’s a riddle. It’s vague, interpretive, and gloriously elastic. You can argue it into anything: a surveillance policy, a parking fine, or a drone strike. It’s like being asked to dissect a frog without knowing if it’s biology class or performance art. 

The doctrine promises fairness, but delivers confusion — wrapped in Latin, sprinkled with judicial discretion, and served with a side of “it depends.”

So if lawyers themselves are guessing, what hope does the common citizen have? *eye roll*

The law is supposed to be for the people. But proportionality turns it into a philosophical scavenger hunt. You’re told your rights are protected — proportionally. You’re told your data is collected — proportionally. You’re told your punishment fits the crime — proportionally. 

But no one tells you what the scale looks like. No one shows you the ruler. And half the time, the ruler is made of vibes.

It’s like being handed a recipe that says “add salt to taste” — except the dish is your civil liberties.

The Proportionality Test: A Legal Riddle in Four Acts

Now, if it help (maybe yes, maybe not), legal texts offer a four-part test. It sounds scientific. It isn’t. 

1. Legitimate Aim - The measure must pursue a lawful and important objective (e.g., public safety, national security).
2. Suitability - The measure must be capable of achieving that aim.
3. Necessity - There must be no less intrusive or restrictive alternative available.
4. Balancing (Strict Sense) - The benefits of the measure must outweigh the harm or burden it imposes on individual rights.

Note: Courts often merge steps 3 and 4 depending on context.

Where It’s Used

• Constitutional Law: To assess limits on fundamental rights.

• Criminal Law: To ensure punishments fit the crime.

• Data Protection: To justify the scope of data collection and processing.

• International Humanitarian Law: To evaluate military necessity vs civilian harm. 

Proportionality in Practice - has vibes

Data Collection: “We only collect what’s necessary.”

Necessary for what? For whom? For how long? 

If your weather app needs your blood type, we’ve lost the plot.

Surveillance: “We monitor proportionally.”

Unless it’s Tuesday. Then we panic.

Content Moderation: “We remove harmful content proportionally.”

Unless it’s satire. Then we overcorrect.

Social pains: “I responded proportionally.” 

Did you really need to stalk someone with 100 emails because someone took your parking spot — or could a passive-aggressive Post-it have sufficed?

The Emotional Absurdity of Proportionality

Proportionality is not a doctrine. It’s a mood board.

It’s the legal system’s way of saying, “We’re being reasonable… probably… maybe… don’t ask.”

It’s the courtroom equivalent of “I’m fine” — delivered through gritted teeth and a 300-page judgment.

Final Thought

Proportionality is the legal ruler that forgot its units.

It’s not a scale. It’s a story.

And like all good stories, it’s messy, interpretive, and occasionally absurd.

Now don't get me wrong, I like that the law isn’t rigid — it’s trying to be fair.

But when the scale is subjective, fairness for one person may feel like poetic justice… and for the other, just poetry.

So the next time someone says “we acted proportionally,” ask them:

“Did you use a ruler with units — or just vibes and a vague sense of justice?”

Disclaimer

This post is not legal advice. It is emotional catharsis dressed as commentary.

Any resemblance to actual doctrines, judgments, or behaviour is purely proportional.

If you feel personally attacked by the examples — congratulations, you understand the doctrine.

Please consult a real lawyer before citing this in court, especially if your ruler has no units.