However, when it comes to punitives, Justice Roberts does have a point. Punitive damages are criminal damages, but without the same burden of proof. They are inherently unfair.

If people want to punish Exxon — and I personally believe that Exxon does need to be punished for this — then it should be done in a criminal courtroom with asus w1g battery,asus w1n battery criminal stanards and criminal defenses.
To basically impose a criminal fine without those standards is truly unfair, unjust, and un-American.

Your argument is tied up in formalisms. There are several things wrong with your argument, but I will point out only this: you are ignoring the loss of liberty dimension. Enhanced protections for criminal defendants are justified because in a criminal prosecution, the state is seeking to essentially remove an individual from society, thus depriving him of nearly all his liberty. Criminal prosecutions threaten the ultimate sanctions, including prison and the death penalty. Punitive damages simply do not compare along this liberty axis. This is the essential difference between tort and crime, not a focus on deterrence or punishment. Hence your assumption #1 is erroneous.

The State Farm case made this clear when SCOTUS refused to uphold a punitive damages award that punished a corporation beyond any reasonable relationship to the injuries it caused. The court was recognizing that punitive damages are indeed different from criminal sanctions in that they are not intended to decapitate the corporate bad actor with a puntive death blow– the equivalent of depriving an individual of his liberty — but to deter them from repeating these acts and sending a message to others to observe a higher standard.

Contrary to what you’ve been arguing, tort law is not “intended” or solely concerned with compensation. Compensation for the harmed cannot possibly be the only component of tort law. One need only observe that tort victims are compensated by those who cause the harm to realize this point. Tort awards do not come from public funds (unless a public entity is the tortious actor), they are paid by the tort feasor. The point is to deter the tort feasor AND compensate the victim.

Recall that punitive damages are only assessed when a heightened standard of culpability is met. Punitive damages are necessary in tort because without them, corporate actors are not deterred from sacrificing human life for profits when reasonable modifications to business practices or designs would save those lives. In other words, the tort functions of compensation and deterrence cannot be met in cases of large corporate liability without punitive sanctions.

I see your point that punitive damages have some elements that make them look like criminal sanctions — they involve higher standards of culpability, they punish and make examples of bad actors. But I just cannot join you in thinking that these similarities mean punitive damages should require a trial prosecuted by the state where each element is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, where subpoenas of corporate officers would presumably be nullified by the fifth amendment. Suggesting that punitive damages must be tried under the rubric of criminal procedure is tantamount to suggesting that they be eliminated altogether leading to an utter lack of deterrence for highly culpable behavior.

Thanks for the “clueless dumbass” comment. It sure added weight to your post. Particularly when your post shows that you don’t have a clue in the world.

If you are going to call somebody a “dumbass”, you probably should have some idea what you are talking about, and you clearly don’t.

I’m not sure where you are from Just.

Where I’m from, traffic tickets are handled in criminal courtrooms.

Looks like your “traffic fine” idea falls flat, dumbass

Next point?

By the way, the next time the government seizes somebody’s assets for alleged criminal behavior, but only has to prove in a civil suit under civil standards that the assets were used in a crime, I know you will rush to the government’s defense. You don’t have a problem with assets being taken under civil standards, do you, Dumbass?

all Baptized by Big Oil

Nuff said?

Your use of use of “punnies” wasn’t a typo — that’s the way you spelled every time you used it. Just admit it.

No, don’t bother. In pointing out your idiocy, I forgot that I don’t care.

Tooooodles!

First, I did not know you write using two names — CJ and JJ. It looks like you just flashed out an angry response, without regard to whether my note was directed to you or not. Very intelligent.

That being said, the following comment by JJ deserves comment:

“No crime is classified by intent. At this point I’m not surprised that you don’t grasp that fact.”

No crime is classified by intent?

That’s interesting.

I thought that all of the manslaughter/murder distinctions were based to some degree on “intent.”

Am I mistaken? Please correct me if I’m wrong on this one.

By the way, were you the same person who argued that, since the app. ct. had ruled, the result must be correct? I thought that was the dumbest commeny ever, but the “intent is irrelevant to criminal law” statement is a close second.

Let’s hope that there are no typpos in this post. They so upset poor Zooeeyy. I just picture that person fretting to him/herself “Somebody here does not agree with us on every issue. Just WHAT will we do. AND THEY CAN’T TYPE!”

I have to say that the comments here are typical of what I would hear on Rush Limbaugh. I’ve found the left version of dittoheads. Disagree on an issue? GET OUT TROLL!

Pathetic.

At least you all vote for my candidates though, despite being too STUPID to understand why you are doing so. The GOP has enough numbskullls. Good to see we’ve got our share of that vote too.

the crooked railroad job (pun intended) the scotus handed down that made Corps. into people (only people with way more resources than people ever have)

legal scholars ever since have condemned that decision, which was clearly made in interest of the railroad magnates, and was not in line with any precedent available at the time. the scotus sitting at that time is acknowledged as one ofthe most corrupt ever.

overturning that decision would do this country more good than any other thing our government could do.

Comment by tombaker — February 28, 2008 @ 11:51 am

Just a correction; the court case in question was decided in 1886 (not 1862; that was the year that the Union Pacific Railroad Company was incorporated). The full text of the ruling can be found at http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html (for anyone who’s masochistic enough to actually read the whole thing).
But the most important point is that *apparently* a judge simply decided (without dissent from his peers) that corporations were “persons”. (More on this can be found at the above-mentioned link; it precedes the text of the court ruling.)

It’s “punies.” As in “punitive damages.” Punies.

Of course, if you want to be rewarded a clutch of bunnies as punies….

I’m not going to call you stupid — again.

Dumb ass.

That is not done based on any sort of “intent” or “purpose”?”

That’s either a willful misreading of the post or sheer obtuseness. It’s really hard to tell which. If you can’t make an honest or intelligent argument, please stop wasting pixels.

“If that is not your point, then what is the reason that certain matters are assigned to civil and others to criminal?”

No crime is classified by intent. At this point I’m not surprised that you don’t grasp that fact.

According to you, matters are just randomly assigned to criminal as opposed to civil dockets?

That is not done based on any sort of “intent” or “purpose”?

If that is not your point, then what is the reason that certain matters are assigned to civil and others to criminal?

I didnt say that, I just merely pointed out the spurious logic of saying
that simply because two aspects of the legal system have similar” intent” that they should therefore be treated similarly.

>I always thought that criminal law was intended to punish conduct, while >tort law was intended to compensate.
>Am I mistaken?

weeeellll… if you are speaking only to “intent”, thats one for the philsophers (not sure how a non-sentient concept like law has “intent”), but as far as what tort law IS vs what criminal law is.. the difference is criminal law is always prosecuted by the state and involves the possibility of fines (which go to the state) and jail time, vs civil law, which is brought by the victims, doesnt carry the posibility of jail time, and puts the money awarded in the victims (and thier lawyers :) pockets.

im not even going to get into the “intent”or “purpose” argument.. its the sort of assanine thing rumsfeld tried to use to argue that putting someone in a jail cell with no trial wasnt unconsitutional because the purpose was not to imprison them, merely to get information

Let me get this right: If a “criminal” law offers only a fine as a punishment, then in your mind it is not really a criminal law? Should we write those out of the criminal code, since, according to you, they are not really criminal?

I always thought that criminal law was intended to punish conduct, while tort law was intended to compensate.

Am I mistaken?

Generally, something to substitute for, or supplement the threat of a real person being put behind real bars. Unless you want to ignore that aspect
of how criminal fines and punitive damages are completely dissimilar, I don’t think one should put alot of weight toward the fact that they are, theoretically, both to punish.

I understand you concern, I just happen to have a bit of an aversion to flaggin folks…I have a pretty high tolerance for idiocy I suppose, I guess after trudging through pages and pages of mr. Phees “1 @m 0s@mA B1N l@DEN AND I APPROVE Ov THIS BLoG” posts my “not a troll” bar has been set incredibly low…