Politics: J'accuse!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How odd that there's nothing in there about the death penalty.

They deserve it. Except for the ones that are wrongly convicted, but hey.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
They deserve it. Except for the ones that are wrongly convicted, but hey.

Be that as it may, the Catholic Church takes a different position, and you'd think that if they're going to start leveraging their ecumenical clout to bring politicians in-line, they'd do so across their whole portfolio of positions.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Be that as it may, the Catholic Church takes a different position, and you'd think that if they're going to start leveraging their ecumenical clout to bring politicians in-line, they'd do so across their whole portfolio of positions.

The types who say that anyone who votes for someone who does not toe the line on abortion and stem cell research only say they are against the death penalty.


Why aren't they denying communion to people who vote for people who are in favor of birth control? No. Why, Ty, why?

I like "Why, Ty." It rhymes.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Well, in fairness, they're the ones saying a 40% rate destroys almost all incentive.

It's remarkable. Even without my argument, you've converted the punis in any case into the lawyer's right, not the client's. Clients want compensation for their injuries, not the injuries of others. And they have a right to the former (assuming it's a tort), but not the latter. And surely you're not saying that we want more folks hoping to get on the right bus that gets rear-ended.

So, really punis, and their amount, are just to provide an incentive for sufficient p.i. lawyers to bring cases. But, again, your argument contradicts itself. First you say there are only 9 windfall cases a year. The rest are 2x or 3x punis. That's small potatoes, and hardly provides a large incentive in itself. If the vast majority of cases are comps or comps and 2x punis, how greatly reduced are the incentives when it becomes comps and .5x (or .2x) punis, particularly if you're getting the legal fees out of that anyway? And are the windfall 100m cases really the type of activity we want to encourage?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How odd that there's nothing in there about the death penalty.

They don't want the biscuits going stale, Ty.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
The types who say that anyone who votes for someone who does not toe the line on abortion and stem cell research only say they are against the death penalty.


Why aren't they denying communion to people who vote for people who are in favor of birth control? No. Why, Ty, why?

Hey, I was the one playing the naif here.

I like "Why, Ty." It rhymes.

Indeed.

[Slave Once Again]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hey, I was the one playing the naif here.

I thought it was Joshua Micah Marshall who was the naif. Arn't you more of a naif-wannabe?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Slave Once Again
I thought it was Joshua Micah Marshall who was the naif. Arn't you more of a naif-wannabe?

A sock with a post count of 19 shouldn't be calling someone else a naif. Unless they can be funny about it. Try again.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's remarkable. Even without my argument, you've converted the punis in any case into the lawyer's right, not the client's. Clients want compensation for their injuries, not the injuries of others. And they have a right to the former (assuming it's a tort), but not the latter. And surely you're not saying that we want more folks hoping to get on the right bus that gets rear-ended.

So, really punis, and their amount, are just to provide an incentive for sufficient p.i. lawyers to bring cases. But, again, your argument contradicts itself. First you say there are only 9 windfall cases a year. The rest are 2x or 3x punis. That's small potatoes, and hardly provides a large incentive in itself. If the vast majority of cases are comps or comps and 2x punis, how greatly reduced are the incentives when it becomes comps and .5x (or .2x) punis, particularly if you're getting the legal fees out of that anyway? And are the windfall 100m cases really the type of activity we want to encourage?

Jesus, Burger, that is not a conversion to the lawyer's right. why would the client want the lawyer to work at all on the punitive part if the client is going to be taxed 75% on any recovery? The client wants compensation for their injuries, sure, but they want as much money as they can possibly get.

Maybe the punitives are a reward for being the one to bring the case that makes the company stop doing whatever they are being punished for through the punitive damages. The client isn't getting rewarded for other people's injuries, they are getting rewarded for helping to avoid other people getting injured. You make it sound like the client is taking money from other people's injuries.

I would hope that no entity would conduct itself in such a way as to merit having punitive damages imposed on them. I certainly don't want anyone, let alone as many people as possible, harmed by behavior that merits such damages. But if companies are doing that kind of thing, and the feeling is that they should pay, paying the people who bring the cases encourages people to bring those cases as early as possible. Thus stopping the behavior earlier.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
But if companies are doing that kind of thing, and the feeling is that they should pay, paying the people who bring the cases encourages people to bring those cases as early as possible. Thus stopping the behavior earlier.

It is odd that conservatives who think that the death penalty deters crime do not seem to think that corporations will also act rationally when similarly confronted with dire penalties. Funny that. Maybe if corporate executives were denied communion.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's remarkable. Even without my argument, you've converted the punis in any case into the lawyer's right, not the client's.

I'm not converting it into any kind of right, because I think it's stupid to talk of a "right" to damages that hinge completely on whether the jury hates the defendant's conduct enough. I don't think it's a right, I think it's a way of deputizing plaintiffs to enforce a code of conduct within our social affairs. Yeah, the state can prosecute you for the DUI that sideswipes you on a summer day and tears off the left arm you had hanging out the driver's side window to tan, and it probably will. But it can only do so much to make that person's life as miserable as society wants to make it, and maybe it can't get "reasonable doubt" proof, so you're deputized to exact the kind of punishment and deterrence that's too expensive for government actors to pursue in every case involving especially flagrant wrongdoing.

Once you agree that it's okay to deputize private litigants to vindicate the laws against malice, oppression and fraud (and let's face it, you don't agree with that, but you're pretending this is an argument about margins), it seems clear to me that you need to be practical about its effects. Giving the state the lion's share of any award is nothing more than a statement that you don't like windfalls, and it seems easy to take from the pool of people who don't know they're tort victims yet, because their respective torts haven't happened yet.

I'm saying that the breakdown between plaintiff and state being proposed creates some unintended consequences. The hypo I gave you has the plaintiff and his lawyers getting $75K each from a $1M punitive award --- and not every punitive-eligible wrongdoer has assets that justify an award even that large. For small-fry folk with big-time wrongdoing, like your felons and whatnot, why bother if the state's gonna take 75%?

Clients want compensation for their injuries, not the injuries of others. And they have a right to the former (assuming it's a tort), but not the latter. And surely you're not saying that we want more folks hoping to get on the right bus that gets rear-ended.

You've got a bizarre view of tort plaintiffs that tells me you don't know many people who've been injured in accidents. The vast majority of them come out behind their economic losses at the end of a case. (Where's Sidd when I need him?) Maybe I'm a poor lawyer, but I've never represented a tort victim who would volunteer for the tort+litigation experience all over again for the settlement or damage award. And I've worked on everything ranging from minor dog bites to wrongful death cases.

Clients want compensation for their injuries. The state wants deterrence of bad or dangerous conduct. A punitive award to the plaintiff is just a no-cost way for the state to deputize the plaintiff to accomplish this. This pisses you off, it's clear. But I again assure you that punitive awards upheld on appeal are extremely rare, and require more than negligence (duh). If anything, they motivate the pre-litigation conduct of insurance companies sued for bad faith denial of insurance benefits, and that's pretty much it. Dumbfuck drunks are more afraid of arrest than they are of losing their shirts. Business tortfeasors other than insurance companies rarely lose under California's MOF jury instructions, which are excessively fair to defendants, unless they're committing out-and-out fraud. Besides, there are really only about six great plaintiff's courthouses left in the country, and litigators tend to know their names. They're not in California, but Schwartzeneggar's base didn't go to law school and doesn't know that.

So, really punis, and their amount, are just to provide an incentive for sufficient p.i. lawyers to bring cases. But, again, your argument contradicts itself. First you say there are only 9 windfall cases a year. The rest are 2x or 3x punis. That's small potatoes, and hardly provides a large incentive in itself.

True, except for the PI part --- there are other cases, you know. Widows losing retirement benefits, and such. I don't use the potential for punitive damages to control case selection for the reason you cite. I generally counsel my clients that they're a bonus you should not count on getting. Usually, they're the ones raising punis when pitching a case because they're facing bad law on compensatories (for example, in the employment litigation context). But when I've got a shot, I'm sometimes willing to invest the client's money in working up a punitives case --- other similar bad acts, for example.

If the vast majority of cases are comps or comps and 2x punis, how greatly reduced are the incentives when it becomes comps and .5x (or .2x) punis, particularly if you're getting the legal fees out of that anyway?

Why does a marginal tax increase of 5% cause any reduction in GDP under a supply-side theory? Riddle me that, Batman. Because micro decisions become macro when they happen often enough. And future-prediction is even harder in the litigation context than it is in other forms of business investment.

And are the windfall 100m cases really the type of activity we want to encourage?

An equally good question is whether conduct leading up to $100M puni awards is the type of activity we want to encourage. So all of this is over multi-million class actions? You're using a nuclear weapon to kill a fly. In your effort to save your portfolio companies from a huge verdict, you're changing the way tort cases between individuals, or between an individual and an insurance company, are litigated. You're playing with fire.

Shit, I really wish Ty was on my side on this one. He's shove links right up your ass, but I'm too tired to Google.

Edited to change "settlement" where I meant "award." I presume the Governor's proposal doesn't claim a portion of settlements that might include a premium over compensatories representing the potential for a punitive damage award.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It is odd that conservatives who think that the death penalty deters crime do not seem to think that corporations will also act rationally when similarly confronted with dire penalties.

I'll put it another way. The conservatives who think jurors can't be trusted with the power to impose punitive damages also tend to think Mumia Abu Jamal's death sentence shouldn't have been overturned.

Taking away a life was within the contemplation of the Framers, but taking away too much of a corporation's money is beyond the pale and violates their DP* rights, no matter how odious the conduct was.

*Get your mind out of the gutter, sicko.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Giving the state the lion's share of any settlement is nothing more than a statement that you don't like windfalls, and it seems easy to take from the pool of people who don't know they're tort victims yet, because their respective torts haven't happened yet.

Not so. If you think that plaintiffs will continue to seek punitives with the same vigor even if you tax them at 75%, then you can impose a regime in which (1) defendants are still getting hit with punitives (and maybe moreso, if juries figure this out and want to award punitives to benefit the plaintiff instead of punish the defendant), and (2) plaintiffs still get a windfall, and (3) the state gets some money.

In light of your arguments, I'm not so sure about the premise, though.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It is odd that conservatives who think that the death penalty deters crime

Do liberals think that dead people aren't deterred from committing more crimes?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I'll put it another way. The conservatives who think jurors can't be trusted with the power to impose punitive damages also tend to think Mumia Abu Jamal's death sentence shouldn't have been overturned.

Taking away a life was within the contemplation of the Framers, but taking away too much of a corporation's money is beyond the pale and violates their DP* rights, no matter how odious the conduct was.

I think I was the one who posted several months ago about the incongruity of the Supreme Court's decisions this year that (1) punitives are capped at a single-digit multiplier of compensatories, and (2) putting someone away from 80 bazillion years on a third-strike violation for stealing a piece of pizza** isn't cruel and unusual.

*"Get your mind out of the gutter, sicko." I don't know what you mean, sicko.

** Not the real facts, and maybe not even the holding -- I don't recall now and am too lazy to figure it out.