> I would be fine with automated fines of $100 being handed out to people downloading a file illegally and I think that would be a more effective deterrent than the present lawsuit madness that rules copyright.
And then enough people challenge the fines to break the system. You still have to guarantee some form of trial.
There's plenty of precedents for fines that become much more expensive if you challenge them in court, because being found guilty by a court indicates a higher degree of confidence in the finding.
That seems (in the US) to violate one's constitutional right to a trial. That is, exercising one's right to a trial should not increase the potential punishment, as doing so is a deterrent against exercising that fundamental right.
I don't see how your second sentence follows from your first. I don't see how appealing a charge may not result, after findings of fact, in conviction of charges more serious than those initially charged.
First, AIUI the government doesn't get to appeal in criminal cases. If a trial goes against them, that's the end of it.
Second, the right to a trial is enumerated in the US constitution. Anything that discourages people from exercising that right, such as a fine that increases as a result of choosing to have a fair trial rather than just paying after being accused, is an affront to that right.
And then enough people challenge the fines to break the system. You still have to guarantee some form of trial.