What does it matter what the amount is? If it was trillions or even a few hundred grand, the odds of the offender having the funds and being able to pay anything are pretty remote. Still, who can pay $300 mil?
It might be a constitutional issue under cruel and unusual if the amount was a crazy amount.
There isn’t really anything they can do to make someone pay, short of wage garnishments, etc., which they do, but as there are no debtor prisons in this country, assuming he gets out, they just keep taking a percentage of his pay check.
I think the amendment that addresses bail is limited to just that, bail, but no one seems to pay it any mind when people can be held on sveral million dollars bail or remanded without bail.
It is easy to say, “Who cares?” or “Fry him.” But it has a bearing on other issues. Can a contientious objector sue if something he worked on becomes part of a weapons system? Can he collect every time the system is deployed? Can a vegan running a vegetable farm sue if his veggies are served with meat? Poor analogy, but all I can think of at the moment.
What often happens is a judgement is divided among plaintiffs. For example, some idiots racing bicycles struck a cow. They could not identify the cow. The cow was determined to be at fault (or owner). As the owner could not be identified, everyone within a certain radius of the incident who had cattle had to pay on the judgement based on the percentage of cattle they owned. I am surprised that the judgement in this case isn’t divided among the 70 some odd thousand who viewed it.
The total judgment in this case was $3.4 million, not $300 million, and she already collected $1.2 million from one other defendant. (Must have been one wealthy pervert.)
There isn’t really anything they can do to make someone pay, short of wage garnishments, etc., which they do, but as there are no debtor prisons in this country, assuming he gets out, they just keep taking a percentage of his pay check.
There are more things they can do (seize houses, bank accounts, cars) but your basic point is correct-- most criminal defendants don't have much to seize.
I am surprised that the judgement in this case isn’t divided among the 70 some odd thousand who viewed it.
That's more or less what the majority said should be done. The problem is that most of the viewers have never been identified.