Comments on: Damages and Double Jeopardy http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/04/damages_and_dou.html Dispatches from a Small Business Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:42:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: phil http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/04/damages_and_dou.html/comment-page-1#comment-2479 phil Tue, 09 May 2006 21:09:02 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2006/04/damages_and_dou.html#comment-2479 <p>How about a government agency simultaneously filing a civil proceedure and a criminal case against the same person for exactly the same underlying act and keeping the criminal indictment a secret as the accused testifies in the civil proceedure....in Texas.</p> How about a government agency simultaneously filing a civil proceedure and a criminal case against the same person for exactly the same underlying act and keeping the criminal indictment a secret as the accused testifies in the civil proceedure….in Texas.

]]> By: notafish http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/04/damages_and_dou.html/comment-page-1#comment-2478 notafish Fri, 07 Apr 2006 14:41:04 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2006/04/damages_and_dou.html#comment-2478 <p>Jody, If it's the government's domain to levy fines, then I think they should be held responsible for any punitive damages as well. The FDA is supposed to prevent this kind of thing. And, other than some griping, what kind of accountability do they face? Of course government agencies can't go around suing each other, but I don't think they should levy fines on something for which there is a government agency to prevent. If they must, I like Mark's idea.</p> Jody, If it’s the government’s domain to levy fines, then I think they should be held responsible for any punitive damages as well. The FDA is supposed to prevent this kind of thing. And, other than some griping, what kind of accountability do they face? Of course government agencies can’t go around suing each other, but I don’t think they should levy fines on something for which there is a government agency to prevent. If they must, I like Mark’s idea.

]]> By: markm http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/04/damages_and_dou.html/comment-page-1#comment-2477 markm Thu, 06 Apr 2006 21:58:22 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2006/04/damages_and_dou.html#comment-2477 <p>Club: And you also have municipalities and other government agencies using civil suits instead of criminal law to avoid having to provide the defendant with a lawyer or prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Most egregious are the property forfeiture cases, filed against the property, rather than the owner - although everyone knows who the owner is.</p> <p>As for punitive damages in actual civil suits, my suggestion is that any money above actual damages + reasonable and proper legal fees collected goes into a fund to compensate all the other victims <i>for actual damages only</i>. If you collect from this fund, it is settlement in full and you cannot sue separately. The lawyers never get their hands on it - if there aren't enough actual victims to use up the fund, then obviously the amount was miscalculated and the remainder is returned to the defendant.</p> <p>This brings up another problem with the legal profession and courts: often court-appointed trustees turn out to be anything but trustworthy. Solution: make the judge really responsible for oversight. If anyone else catches the trustee dipping into the fund before the judge who appointed him does, the judge is responsible for making good any shortfall that cannot be collected from the trustee, and in egregious cases the judge may be criminally tried as an accomplice.</p> Club: And you also have municipalities and other government agencies using civil suits instead of criminal law to avoid having to provide the defendant with a lawyer or prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Most egregious are the property forfeiture cases, filed against the property, rather than the owner – although everyone knows who the owner is.

As for punitive damages in actual civil suits, my suggestion is that any money above actual damages + reasonable and proper legal fees collected goes into a fund to compensate all the other victims for actual damages only. If you collect from this fund, it is settlement in full and you cannot sue separately. The lawyers never get their hands on it – if there aren’t enough actual victims to use up the fund, then obviously the amount was miscalculated and the remainder is returned to the defendant.

This brings up another problem with the legal profession and courts: often court-appointed trustees turn out to be anything but trustworthy. Solution: make the judge really responsible for oversight. If anyone else catches the trustee dipping into the fund before the judge who appointed him does, the judge is responsible for making good any shortfall that cannot be collected from the trustee, and in egregious cases the judge may be criminally tried as an accomplice.

]]> By: ClubMedSux http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/04/damages_and_dou.html/comment-page-1#comment-2476 ClubMedSux Thu, 06 Apr 2006 17:05:26 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2006/04/damages_and_dou.html#comment-2476 <p>If you want a technical answer, it's not double jeopardy because it's not a crime; it's a civil award. Of course, what that answer highlights is a bigger problem in American courts: the blurring of the line between civil and criminal justice. Traditionally, civil courts awarded financial compensation for people who have been wronged, while criminal courts punished morally reprehensible behavior (hence criminal courts required mens rea--"the guilty mind"--while civil courts did not). However, you now have civil courts awarding significant punitive damages (which run contrary to the notion of civil courts as simply making the injured party whole) while criminal courts are increasingly convicting people of "crimes" that don't require criminal intent. Personally, it seems to me that justice was better served when the civil and criminal realms were separated by their traditional distinctions.</p> If you want a technical answer, it’s not double jeopardy because it’s not a crime; it’s a civil award. Of course, what that answer highlights is a bigger problem in American courts: the blurring of the line between civil and criminal justice. Traditionally, civil courts awarded financial compensation for people who have been wronged, while criminal courts punished morally reprehensible behavior (hence criminal courts required mens rea–”the guilty mind”–while civil courts did not). However, you now have civil courts awarding significant punitive damages (which run contrary to the notion of civil courts as simply making the injured party whole) while criminal courts are increasingly convicting people of “crimes” that don’t require criminal intent. Personally, it seems to me that justice was better served when the civil and criminal realms were separated by their traditional distinctions.

]]> By: Jody http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/04/damages_and_dou.html/comment-page-1#comment-2475 Jody Thu, 06 Apr 2006 17:01:33 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2006/04/damages_and_dou.html#comment-2475 <p>My solution is to remove punitive damages from private lawsuits. </p> <p>If punishment is needed, let the feds (or states) try it as a separate case.</p> <p>I don't see why any plaintiff should be rewarded for someone else's wrongdoing (compensated yes, rewarded no) and I think the levying of fines (which is what punitive damages really are) is naturally the domain of government.</p> <p>I call the current system where plaintiffs receive punitive damages "lawsuit vigilantism"</p> My solution is to remove punitive damages from private lawsuits.

If punishment is needed, let the feds (or states) try it as a separate case.

I don’t see why any plaintiff should be rewarded for someone else’s wrongdoing (compensated yes, rewarded no) and I think the levying of fines (which is what punitive damages really are) is naturally the domain of government.

I call the current system where plaintiffs receive punitive damages “lawsuit vigilantism”

]]>