Can you provide the reasoning on why this is the fair ruling?
It seems like the cost of repayment was spread out to everyone since (I guess that) the state's funds came from taxes. Is it fair to have taken a very small value from a lot of people not even involved to repay the buyer?
The throwing the goat in jail seems to be a gimic and I would wonder what that cost the state. I very much doubt the goat was rehabilitated from his time in jail.
If I was a taxpayer of this state, I would not have found this ruling to be fair.
