Replies

This benefits everyone, and I see no reason why a reasonable jury should be stripped of its power to punish.

Then you'll agree that punitive damages should go to society, instead of the lion's share to trial lawyers, so as to benefit everyone.

BTW, who gets to judge what a reaonable jury is? Certainly not society. The lawyers judge that. Now, let's look at who picks the jury...the lawyers try to pick the best educated people for the jury, right? No, of course not. So maybe you will agree that a standard list of disqualificiations will be passed by law, and the jury pool will otherwise be constructed of the names of the people drawn right from the voter list,and we will start seeing more college graduates, professionals, and business owners on juries. OK with you, bud?

Society in what sense, like some government related coffer that goes to the education of America's youth or some crap like that?

Frankly, I don't see any reason why punitive damages shouldn't go to the victim who was injured.

If you cap awards at actual damages or put punitive damages in some sort of slush fund, you are again punishing the victim. Attorneys have to get paid, and a case on contingency is 1/3 of a judgment. If an award is limited to actual damages, the injured party only receives 66.666% of his *actual* damages. Even if you want to argue that 1/3 is too much for compensation, the fact is that actual damages don't make a victim whole--they still come out the loser because of the costs of a trial. The law prevents juries to calculate attorneys fees when calculating damages.

In the end, punitive damages (which are rarely awarded, I might add), help fill that gap between what isn't provided by actual damages and what the actual costs to the victim are. The rest of the punitive damages is just a way of saying to the victim, "gee, you really got screwed. Here's a little something extra just to show how really sorry we are." I don't have a problem with that.

A standard list of disqualifications? I don't see how anything like that can be standardized; that just doesn't make sense. Each case is different and presents different little twists and turns that need to be evaluated as they arrive. As far as best educated people on the jury, those are the people that tend to think they know everything and are close minded; I sure don't want people like that serving on a jury. Sort of defeats the purpose of a fair trial. Besides that, it creates a bias in the jury room; the least educated people are more likely to agree with the most educated people, and there is again a problem with that whole fair trial thing.