American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition

[Jeeper]

Companies cannot kill anyone. People kill people. Corporations are legal constructs designed for pooling and protecting assets. So if somebody at a corporation murders another, they should be criminally punished.

Who then is punished? The CEO who might not know? An assembly worker who might have an idea? The accountant? The engineer? Who would ever want to make a decision that would affect themselves? The real problem is that what happens at the corporation would never pass muster under any test for murder or manslaughter. Thusly no one would ever be punished. Thus your dead family is still only worth $2.

Companies don't pay fines and awards. Rather, consumers do, accounting for up to 50% of the cost of some items. If a company is subject to an excesive award, the price of widgets merely rises from, say, $2 to $3 in response.

Punitive damages are awarded in civil court, and have nothing to do with "following the law". Markets are very effective at eliminating sellers who produce faulty goods. That's the incentive.

I agree that consumers end up paying the cost. When some company gets sued a lot because they dont follow the law then their competition is better off. Thus the company who screwed up goes out of business.


I do see that no one answered my question about their family being worth $2. Even in a system of perfect companies and universal healthcare dont you think that people will still die due to company negligence. What about the victims? Should they get nothing? I am not saying that the settlements and verdicts arent too large. But they do need to exist. I always think it is funny that everyone thinks verdicts are too large but then they sit on a jury and give away money.

As for Universal healthcare. Look at Canada. 6 month waits for simple procedures. The rich all come to America for treatment.

 

[treeprof]

Companies do not get sued, seldom or a lot, in civil court because "they don't follow the law". That's a criminal court matter. A company may get sued if criminal wrongdoing caused civil damages, but that is not usually the cause for bringing suit against corporations in civil court. Making a faulty product is not necessarily, or even usually, against the law. And the definition of "faulty" or "negeligent" is very vague. Sometimes injury suffered while using a product for other than it's intended purpose is considered by plaintiffs and juries to be "faulty". That happens a lot with various chemicals, for example. Other times there may be raw material defects or some other cause of failure, rather than negligence. But even death from a faulty product is not "murder". Unless, perhaps, it was expressly designed, manufactured and sold to kill the user. You need to be more careful with your terms.

As far a person's worth, if they are not a wage earner (or have some other source of income dependant upon their existence), then their present economic (not inherent) worth is zero. A working person's future economic worth can be calculated based on their expected earnings, education, etc., and just compensation for their loss can then be awarded accordingly. Non-wage earners like children are another matter, and having a set upper limit for their loss (their inherent worth) would eliminate the outrageous sums awarded in some cases. People who wouldn't spend a couple of bucks a month for life insurance (which is designed to replace econmic, not inherent, loss upon death) for a loved one think nothing of seeking tens of millions of dollars for their loss in court. It's as tho the loved one had no economic worth before they died when it was the plaintiff's responsibility to pay, but somehow did afterward when they could get someone else to pay.

 

[Cosmoline]

It's all well and good to talk boldly about doing justice by punishing corporations. But a corporation is a legal fiction. It is a machine designed for distributing risk and loss, and guess what? Every penny paid out to that family is actually paid by the consumers in higher prices and higher insurance premiums. If someone has comitted a crime, let them be punished as a criminal. You cannot punish a corporation, expect perhaps by revoking its papers. And then you'll only punish investors.

On the damages end, the problem with awarding "soft" damages for pain and suffering, emotional distress, etc. is that this is the pool of assets used to prop up the plaintiff's bar. That's where the lawyer's money comes from, in big and small cases alike.

 

[tyme]

That's why it should come from the company's financial pool. Nobody was forced to give money to the corporation. They chose to. Creditors and those with equity in a company obviously have a stake in the company. Otherwise they would not do credit checks, due diligence, etc. There's no reason they should not also have a stake in the civil liability of the company. If you don't trust a company not to cover up a toxic chemical spill, don't lend them money, and don't invest.

The result of punitive damages is that the company's financials are slightly worsened, and public confidence in the company probably declines. That's motivation for those in the company not to be involved in questionable activities, because they would suffer.

Of course, if nothing deters anyone from doing anything questionable or outright illegal, there's no point in having any punitive damages at all. I think financially motivated crimes can be deterred to some extent.

 

[Orthonym]

But that's what corporations are FOR!

That is, limited liability !

 

[tyme]

Limited personal liability doesn't mean that assets people choose to give or lend the company should be protected as well, if that's what you're trying to imply.

 

[Cosmoline]

Your arguments make sense as to compensatory damages. Indeed, I'm not arguing corporations can't be sued and forced to compensate in tort or contract. They can, that's one of their roles. But to PUNISH a corporation is a non-sequitur. It can't be punished because it's a fiction, a legal and financial device for allocating risk and reward. It's like saying you're going to punish a bank account. It makes no sense.