The mainstream position (which goes back several decades) is that, for economic efficiency, the punitive multiple should be inverse to the probability that the tort will be relieved. So if there is a one in three chance that polluters get caught, damages assessed should be multiplied by three. Very standard Pigovian stuff. The deeper question is whether the cost internalization paradigm is adequate. I've got a bunch of articles saying it's not, at least in the context of occ safety and health. I'll be happy to share with anyone interested. Peter Jim Devine wrote: > > I'm not going to side with the following, but I think that some reform of > the tort system is in order. It seems that there are frivolous lawsuits > launched in order not just to get compensatory damages but also to win big > punitive damages. I see nothing wrong with compensatory damages (if the > plaintiff is right about liability) but it makes sense to me that the > plaintiff shouldn't get the punitive damages. Instead, they should be put > in some general government fund to finance needed stuff like day-care > centers. Under this system, (1) the defendant would be punished, (2) the > plaintiff would be compensated for damage done to him or her, (3) there > would be less arbitrariness and unpredictability of punitive damage awards > because fewer plaintiffs and attorneys would "go for the gold," and (4) > the punitive damages might pay for something useful. > > Vicusi argues:> Legal scholars and judges have long expressed concerns over > the > > unpredictability and arbitrariness of punitive damages awards. > > Proposed remedies, such as restricting punitive damages to > > narrowly defined circumstances, have not yet met with success. > > This paper addresses the threshold issue of whether, on balance, > > punitive damages have benefits in excess of their costs. There > > is no evidence of a significant deterrent effect based on an > > original empirical analysis of a wide range of risk measures for > > the states with and without punitive damages. These measures > > included accident rates, chemical spills, medical malpractice > > injuries, insurance performance, and other outcomes that should > > be affected by punitive damages, but which are not. Punitive > > damages can and do cause substantial economic harm through their > > random infliction of economic penalties. > > I am not a lawyer and do not play one on TV. I would appreciate your > comments on this idea. > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & > http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html > Bombing DESTROYS human rights. US/NATO out of Serbia!
