...but this is the exact reason that these things can't be left in the hands of the executive anymore. They don't make good decisions, and with the internet, promulgation and understanding of the laws is much easier than ever before.
She likely did do something wrong - you can't just go and cook food and sell it without the proper license = food inspection etc..
Obviously, she should be not facing any jail time, and a warning should suffice.
But let's not avoid the reality of this - we either have decent regulation or not.
The issue here 'proportionality' not 'culpability'.
Give her a 'speeding ticket' and it should be over.
And regardless, whatever the law is, I'm happy to see it enforced, vigorously and to-the-letter. Hoping against the odds for executive "discretion" to result in anything but fomenting of privilege is simply contrary to the evidence of its conduct thus far.
TL;DR: Few laws; vigorous, robotic enforcement.
+ We need laws to regulate food esp. hygiene and sanitary standards. If you want to know why this is, then visit any less civilized place and look around. Restaurants are thin margin places - some of them will cut corners, do all sorts of stuff otherwise.
+ All laws need enforcement - and they are enforced with the threat of fines, confiscation, and ultimately the threat of violence.
For the same reason we need 'the threat of violence' to manage traffic, borders, and everything else.
The only time it's not obvious is when there is no physicality to the crime, i.e. fraud, corruption etc. but even then the 'threat of violence' is there when it comes to arrest/incarceration etc..
ICIM: I'm a "person of color who's made a lot of unfortunate choices" ;=D