but can't the plaintiff sue for court costs? Ultimately I think we'd be better off if the argument was over the exact cost of the court costs plus compensation for the inconvenience of taking the case to court (which would be sizeable but not trillions). Those are the real losses for the plaintiff.
It seems like punitive damages should be part of the criminal trial, not the civil trial, and treated as a form of community service, rather than as an outlandish windfall for the civil complainant. As for pursuing the cases, federal prosecutors like Spitzer was appear to be reasonably motivated even when not pursuing huge settlements. If the government gets the punitive damages, that could fund extra prosecutors. (But such a system would need safeguards against the kind of quid pro quo that results in speeding-ticket trolls, in the same way that, for example, the IRS is indirectly funded by its own earnings but (one would hope) not therefore motivated to increase revenues for that particular reason.)
My basic objection is that if justice is the practice of giving both the victim and the transgressor their just desserts, the current punitive damage system artificially links the desserts of the victim to the desserts of the transgressor, with horrendous results.
I doubt the police department gets significant financial gain out of minor pot busts. Therefore, financial gain is not a motivator for minor pot busts.
it varies from place to place, but in many areas the local PD certainly has a clear stake in the proceeds generated by ticketing. That's why they troll the section of the highway that goes through their jurisdiction and pull people over for doing 70 in a 55.
If damages were given to the gov't, can you imagine what the laws and rulings we'd end up seeing? It's already bad enough that cops "camp out" on the highways to zap us for going 5 mph over the speed limit in order to generate revenue...
that's because the tickets go directly to the police department. if they went straight to the federal government, there would be no incentive to over-ticket. same with punitive damages. actually your observation is a good example of why punitive damages should not be awarded to an interested party.
There is a difference between actual damages and statutory damages. Actual damages are an attempt to compensate the victim. Statutory damages are an attempt to include punitive damage in statute law.
Whether or not this is wise law-making is debatable. I suspect that it would be better to force the victim to sue directly for punitive damages, thus leaving the matter to a judge to determine of the punishment fits the offense.
I've often wondered why punitive damages are given to the plaintiff, rather than, for example, funneled into law-enforcement programs (such as is presumably done with recovered drug money, etc.). The plaintiff is already getting compensatory damages. The purpose of the punitive damages is to punish the defendant. Why should the plaintiff get them? Maybe if he weren't to get them, we wouldn't have ridiculous trillion dollar (or even hundred million dollar) lawsuits.
Joelt, You need to have a good, long think about yourself.
oh please, that kind of preening self-important talk does more to turn people off even considering patent-law revisions than the sophistic arguments of a dozen pharm lawyers.
It is important that people be permitted to get filthy rich for making big discoveries, because of the risk involved of failure.
It's just like entrepreneurship: if you take the ability to make ungodly sums of money away from entrepreneurs, because of the fact that they are driving ferraris while "others are suffering," quite a few of them wouldn't build the companies they do, because it's much safer to get a normal job for the same pay. Likewise if someone devotes his life to discovering a cure for some disease because he's attracted by the idea it could make him filthy rich, and you take away that incentive, he's likely to go after a much less risky goal.
"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
- Albert Einstein
I wonder if he would have designed a watch that maintained the same time relative to a specific frame of reference, regardless of how close to the speed of light the wearer was traveling.
Does memorizing the names and stats of baseball players make your brain grow?
What about people who memorize every little detail of Star Trek?
Or is it that only people with the additional brain mass CAN memorize all those items?
maybe they are just using their brain in a different way.
Perhaps they are storing those statistics in that part of the brain that in other people makes possible the rational thought processes necessary to prevent them from memorizing Mr. Spock's batting average or whatever in the first place.
well.. I don't know if you can say that they copied from that. After all, Odysseus' dogs waited ten years (or whatever it was) for him in the Odyssey, and then died promptly upon his return to Ithaca. Does that mean the Japanese dog was copying Homer?
I always thought that the mint should make all coins out of radioactive waste. It would solve the problem of nuclear waste disposal. It would encourage consumers to spend money - quickly. This would help the economy. And it would definitely discourage hoarding of currency.
If the dollar keeps depreciating, that may be the only way to ensure that coins aren't worth more than their face value.
it appears that you are doing the conflating. it is of course reasonable to ask whether a person who makes a lot of money is spending it ethically if he ignores the homeless and spends it all on ferraris. it is also perfectly reasonable to ask whether the government is behaving ethically if it appropriates more money from an individual than it returns to him in the way of services.
perhaps you claim that the government should have an ethical code of itself, whereby it attempts to maintain a social balance, but it is certainly possible to argue that the government should not foist a code of ethics upon its citizens, who should instead be allowed to decide whether to buy ferraris or feed the homeless with their income as they see fit.
for you to answer the claim that the government may be behaving unethically by appropriating a disproportionate amount from one sector of the population with the counterclaim that this sector of the population is behaving unethically by not spending its money on socially beneficial programs appears to be to answer the wrong argument.
I believe that in the US, only devices that broadcast over a certain range are regulated and need licenses. Was it different in the UK?
no, they just needed time for the police to get the proper equipment to monitor the mp3 broadcasts on a massive scale. by next year owning a broadcasting mp3 player will be mandatory, and god forgive anyone who walks into Harrod's listening to Jane's Addiction's "Been Caught Stealing"
Slashdot Mirror
but can't the plaintiff sue for court costs? Ultimately I think we'd be better off if the argument was over the exact cost of the court costs plus compensation for the inconvenience of taking the case to court (which would be sizeable but not trillions). Those are the real losses for the plaintiff. It seems like punitive damages should be part of the criminal trial, not the civil trial, and treated as a form of community service, rather than as an outlandish windfall for the civil complainant. As for pursuing the cases, federal prosecutors like Spitzer was appear to be reasonably motivated even when not pursuing huge settlements. If the government gets the punitive damages, that could fund extra prosecutors. (But such a system would need safeguards against the kind of quid pro quo that results in speeding-ticket trolls, in the same way that, for example, the IRS is indirectly funded by its own earnings but (one would hope) not therefore motivated to increase revenues for that particular reason.) My basic objection is that if justice is the practice of giving both the victim and the transgressor their just desserts, the current punitive damage system artificially links the desserts of the victim to the desserts of the transgressor, with horrendous results.
I doubt the police department gets significant financial gain out of minor pot busts. Therefore, financial gain is not a motivator for minor pot busts.
it varies from place to place, but in many areas the local PD certainly has a clear stake in the proceeds generated by ticketing. That's why they troll the section of the highway that goes through their jurisdiction and pull people over for doing 70 in a 55.
It is important that people be permitted to get filthy rich for making big discoveries, because of the risk involved of failure.
It's just like entrepreneurship: if you take the ability to make ungodly sums of money away from entrepreneurs, because of the fact that they are driving ferraris while "others are suffering," quite a few of them wouldn't build the companies they do, because it's much safer to get a normal job for the same pay. Likewise if someone devotes his life to discovering a cure for some disease because he's attracted by the idea it could make him filthy rich, and you take away that incentive, he's likely to go after a much less risky goal.
wow, sounds like a great sequel.
and all thanks to global warming!
the first digit in pie is my index finger. mmm.. cherry..
My crowbar should get product of the year. I use it to engage in revenue generating dialogue with random people on the street.
maybe they are just using their brain in a different way.
Perhaps they are storing those statistics in that part of the brain that in other people makes possible the rational thought processes necessary to prevent them from memorizing Mr. Spock's batting average or whatever in the first place.
screw that.. if I'm buying some fancy Jaguar I want a system that cushions my hood against flying pedestrians.
well.. I don't know if you can say that they copied from that. After all, Odysseus' dogs waited ten years (or whatever it was) for him in the Odyssey, and then died promptly upon his return to Ithaca. Does that mean the Japanese dog was copying Homer?
it appears that you are doing the conflating. it is of course reasonable to ask whether a person who makes a lot of money is spending it ethically if he ignores the homeless and spends it all on ferraris. it is also perfectly reasonable to ask whether the government is behaving ethically if it appropriates more money from an individual than it returns to him in the way of services.
perhaps you claim that the government should have an ethical code of itself, whereby it attempts to maintain a social balance, but it is certainly possible to argue that the government should not foist a code of ethics upon its citizens, who should instead be allowed to decide whether to buy ferraris or feed the homeless with their income as they see fit.
for you to answer the claim that the government may be behaving unethically by appropriating a disproportionate amount from one sector of the population with the counterclaim that this sector of the population is behaving unethically by not spending its money on socially beneficial programs appears to be to answer the wrong argument.
hey, have a heart! the Navy could have used that $100K to buy a hammer and maybe even a few nails.
mad parrot opp!