penalty of $2,500 for “each violation” of regulations relating to nursing homes, for instance, a state appellate court held that a trial court had discretion to construe “violation” differently depending on the particular facts of the case. See People v. Casa Blanca Convalescent Homes, Inc., 159 Cal.App.3d 509, 535, 206 Cal.Rptr. 164 (1984), abrogated on other grounds by Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163, 83 Cal.Rptr. forth in a state statute is not susceptible to a narrowing construction, the California Supreme Court has considered whether the imposition of mandatory, ever-mounting penalties violates the due process clause of the state and federal constitutions in a particular case. See Hale, 22 Cal.3d at 403-04, 149 Cal.Rptr. 375, 584 P.2d 512 (<HOLDING>). The California Supreme Court has indicated
holding the death penalty unconstitutional for defendants under age eighteen at the time of the crime holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional as applied to juvenile defendants holding that although a mandatory 100perday penalty scheme was not necessarily facially unconstitutional the imposition of a 17300 penalty under the statute was constitutionally excessive in that case given the defendants lesser culpability and the possibility of an unmerited windfall to the plaintiff recognizing the unique and irrevocable nature of the death penalty and    the consequently overarching need for reliability in the imposition of such a penalty holding that the penalty is applicable