12 replies to this topic

[jaydfox]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17239146/

Supreme Court throws out Philip Morris verdict
High court: Cigarette maker does not have to pay $79.5 million in damages

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court threw out a $79.5 million award that a jury had ordered a cigarette maker to pay to a smoker’s widow, a ruling that could bode well for other businesses seeking stricter limits on big-dollar verdicts.

The 5-4 decision Tuesday was a victory for Altria Group Inc.’s Philip Morris USA, which contested an Oregon Supreme Court decision upholding the jury’s verdict.

Yet the decision did not address a key argument made by Philip Morris and its supporters across a wide range of businesses — that the size of the award was unconstitutionally large. They had hoped the court would limit the amount that can be awarded in punitive damage cases.

Instead, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his majority opinion that the award to Mayola Williams could not stand because a jury may punish a defendant only for the harm done to the person who is suing, not to others whose cases were not before it.

“To permit punishment for injuring a nonparty victim would add a near standardless dimension to the punitive damages question,” Breyer said.

The company had argued that the jury was encouraged to punish Philip Morris for health problems suffered by every Oregonian who smoked its cigarettes.

...

[william7]

Another example of our courts being corrupted by money and the influence of big corporations. If the damages awards are kept small, tobacco companies can continue with business as usual. Large awards would shut them down.

The rule should be that large damage awards are permissable against large corporations that are clearly engaged in an evil practice that continues to harm people in large numbers. Simple logic to me.

[xanadu]

Juries are manipulated by lawyers who play them like a fiddle. What people don't realize is that they are the ones who pay those big awards, not the companies. Costs from frivolous lawsuits and excessive awards are simply passed on to the consumer. If one company is unable to pass on the costs and goes under, there is less competition so the remaining companies providing the same product or service raise their prices. Another way it's passed on is in escalating insurance costs. One way or another, the consumer pays for all those awards and more.

There is this foolish notion that you can get a free lunch. Many people are resentful of the rich and a rich company is a major target. There are those who make a bundle doing slip and fall lawsuits. Usually, they are settled out of court and no record exists to show they do this. You pay for all that junk along with insurance fraud and so on. But that's getting off the subject a little.

[jaydfox]

Another example of our courts being corrupted by money and the influence of big corporations. If the damages awards are kept small, tobacco companies can continue with business as usual. Large awards would shut them down.

That's what class action lawsuits are for. Imagine if this person had been the only person affected in the manner that lead to the lawsuit. Punitive damages of 97 times the compensatory damages is f***ing ridiculous.

Yes, other people were affected. Millions of other people. That's how the jury was manipulated into awarding such a high punitive amount. But that's just wrong, no matter how you slice it. This is a case where a class action lawsuit would be more appropriate, or failing that, multiple lawsuits with more reasonable punitive damages.

I'm socialist enough to think that punitive damages are an acceptable thing, but libertarian enough to realize that 97x the compensatory damages is not acceptable.

I posted this article because its subject matter covers so many fascinating legal and social issues. Is it okay for the government to punish tobacco companies financially as a proxy for banning cigarettes? Is it okay to use court costs (and sin taxes, though not covered in this article) to raise the cost of using cigarettes as a deterrent, in lieu of prohibition?

And more generally, are punitive damages an acceptable alternative to legislating protections for consumers? If so, what are reasonable limits on those damages? If not, then how can consumers be protected from companies? With cigarettes, one might be tempted to say that people know the health consequences when they sign up.

But what about a new medicine that is thoroughly studied and found to be safe, then discovered years or decades later that it wasn't? What about lifting testing restrictions on supplements and letting people choose for themselves? A product that is tested less will fare better in the marketplace, so how do we encourage testing? Could punitive damages as the result of an ultimately unsafe product deter companies from skipping important tests? Is that the gamble they take by giving consumers the choice to take the product before it's proven?

I'm not a legal expert, and I hardly fit neatly into any one political category (socialist, libertarian, etc.). These questions interest me, and this article made me think of a lot of them.

[william7]

His widow argued that the jury award was appropriate because it punished Philip Morris for a decades-long “massive market-directed fraud” that misled people into thinking cigarettes were not dangerous or addictive.

jaydfox, this was stated further down in the article you posted above. I think the jury did the right thing under the circumstances. When cigarettes start going for 25 bucks a pack a lot more people will quit or substantially reduce their consumption. This would reduce the death rate and the pain and suffering caused by smoking related diseases.

I guess I just don't have any sympathy for big tobacco corporations. I lost both my grandparents and an uncle to cancers caused by smoking. If I came to power in a socialist revolution, I would be highly tempted to criminally prosecute the executives of tobacco companies under retrospective laws similar to those employed at the Nuremberg trials.

But what about a new medicine that is thoroughly studied and found to be safe, then discovered years or decades later that it wasn't?

This is a completely different factual situation than that of Philip Morris. Philip Morris knowingly engaged in massive fraud for self-enrichment. In other words, they are more culpable than those who unknowingly produce an unsafe medicine or other product.

[jaydfox]

This is a completely different factual situation than that of Philip Morris. Philip Morris knowingly engaged in massive fraud for self-enrichment. In other words, they are more culpable than those who unknowingly produce an unsafe medicine or other product.

True, but what about knowingly marketing a product which is not known to be safe, even it's not known to be unsafe either? There are degrees of how much lack of knowledge about the safety a company can have, from no knowledge about safety whatsoever to a very thoroughly tested product which is overwhelmingly likely to be safe but may have effects that are only detectable in long-term studies and perhaps even then only in specific situations. And the whole spectrum in between, of course. Should companies be held more liable if they're closer to the front end of that spectrum, i.e., have no idea or very little idea about the true safetiness of a product? Could we do away with criminal punishments and rely entirely on civil punitive damages? Where does libertarianism fit in versus socialism?

[william7]

Could we do away with criminal punishments and rely entirely on civil punitive damages?

My head is in the Utopian cloud. I'm for abolishing all punitive practices completely. To do this, however, will require living in the right way and educating the children properly. Punitive practices just don't work as B.F. Skinner's behavioral psychology and philosophy points out.

[jaydfox]

Punitive practices just don't work as B.F. Skinner's behavioral psychology and philosophy points out.

I'm disinclined to agree, but I'll read the link when I get a chance.

[xanadu]

I too have great disgust for tobacco companies and those who promote and work for them. However, I do not think that lawsuits are the way to fix the situation. Our government representatives are the ones who are supposed to take care of things like that. Unfortunately, they are easily bought and the anti-cigarette folks do not have the cash to outbid big tobacco. As a result, the cig companies hire a flock of lobbyists to stuff cash in the right pockets and what the public wants doesn't matter. So many of our problems come down to corruption when you get to the bottom of it. Follow the money.

Another problem with lawsuits is that lawyers get much or most of the money. Look into any class action suit and in most cases the lawyers get the bulk of the cash, the original plaintifs get a large chunk, maybe 20% or so, sometimes less, and the "class" people get the shaft. They typically get coupons for discounts on the company's products and when you read the fine print on the coupons, you see that they are almost worthless and the company hopes people will use them. The company gets free advertising and the lawyers pocket most of the dough. It isn't always that way but in 2 cases I was involved in, that's exactly how it came out and I got to read all the fine print. The newspaper write up made it sound like the public collected but in reality, the lawyers collected.

[william7]

Questioning the validity of punishment
A Zen Buddhist Priest’s Perspective on Punishment

Ven. Kobutsu Malone, Osho - American Rinzai Zen Buddhist Priest [1]

I speak from the perspective of a simple Buddhist priest—over the years through working with my own children, with students, prisoners, and my fellow human beings I have learned that any form of punishment, be it corporal or psychological, is injurious, causes pain, and is counterproductive.

Punishment involves the deliberate infliction of physical or emotional pain or injury—on a being—by another person or persons who exercise a “power over” dynamic toward that being. The deliberate infliction of pain on an individual in response to an action after it has occurred can in no way change the effect of the original action nor can it serve to educate or awaken the individual. The physical or emotional pain or injury of punishment done to a child or an adult creates only fear and trauma; it not only damages the person being punished but it damages and enslaves those who inflict the punishment. The abuse of physical violence visited on anyone is a deliberate act that scapegoats the person through the, often disconscious, release of an accumulated burden of internalized oppression.

The net result of any kind of punishment is repressed anger or internalized oppression, humiliation, and degradation for both the giver and the receiver of the punishment. It is difficult indeed to really see the profound depth of this truth because we as individuals and collectively as a society live within an oppressive and coercive environment. Our vision is completely blocked to the truth by materialism in the physical, psychological, and spiritual aspects of our lives. Arrogance and aggression permeate our society, our history, our religious traditions, our so-called judicial system to the point that we can not see clearly enough to question the premise of punishment on a fundamental level. We live in a nation surrounded by violence. Violence and the infliction of pain is almost worshipped in our entertainment, our “news” reporting, and in our day-to-day interrelationships with each other. We fail to perceive that this is a legacy of hatred and oppression that we have inherited from our parents and they from theirs. We forget that our country was founded on the violent conquest and enslavement of indigenous peoples. Our history is presented in schools as “patriotic mythology” that hides the reality that our nation perpetrated the institution of racial slavery of African people for generations for the economic gain of people of privilege and wealth. We fail to perceive how our religious traditions have been used to justify the perpetration of genocide and slaughter on indigenous people in the name of “civilization.”

I submit that punishment is uncivilized and serves no purpose other than the perpetuation of oppression. I was punished; therefore it is justifiable for me to punish another. I was spanked as a child—it did me no harm—therefore I can spank my children. However, deep introspection into our own experience reveals the painful and horrible truth. It is through the means of introspection and insight that we can begin to perceive our addiction to the assumption that punishment is an acceptable mode of behavior.

Each and every time we have ever been punished we have been socialized in punishment—we learn to modify our behavior out of fear in the presence of an oppressor who wields power over us . We internalize our oppression out of fear, denial, and disconscious thought—we carry this burden of external oppression within us. When our oppressor, the individual or group who punishes us, is no longer present, resentment often rises up in the mind; in time our internalized oppression builds into hatred for ourselves and for others. In the long run our internalized oppression, our internal rage and anger result in depression and social alienation, or, when externalized, the oppression of others. We, in effect, have learned to become an oppressor; we disconsciously pass on the cycle of violence to our families, our children, and our society.

Punishment, corporal or otherwise, no matter how it may be justified, is unacceptable and inexcusable, because it erodes the ability of people to see things with clarity and poisons the possibility for genuine healing.

Punishment inflicted on people for the purpose of influencing others, the alleged deterrent effect, is in actuality brutality by proxy, socialization in oppression through threat and fear. Deterrence is a myth maintained by people in positions of power out of ignorance and arrogance and perpetrated on people who are powerless. People do not consider penalties when involved in illegal activity; their only concern is “getting-over” on those in power—not getting caught—deterrence does not enter the picture.

The only truly effective and successful methods of dealing with correction of behavior come through compassionate communication, comprehension of social responsibility, education, restraint and discipline. Punishment simply does not, and has never, worked to bring about genuine changes in how people think and act.

http://en.wikipedia....y_of_punishment

jaydfox, checkout the above Wikipedia entry too. I even believe it will take the abolition of all punitive practices to successfully produce the necessary character types able to live out exceptionally lengthy lifespans. Punitive practices produce too much stress and conflict that impacts negatively on longevity.

[Karomesis]

Another example of our courts being corrupted by money and the influence of big corporations. If the damages awards are kept small, tobacco companies can continue with business as usual. Large awards would shut them down.

[lol] here we go again with the "corporations are evil" mantra.

when will people realize the golden rule?


he who has the gold makes the rules. [mellow] this isn't gonna change because of open source collaboration and everyone around the world singing kumbaya together, it only becomes more sinister and difficult to define.

bill gates and other super wealthy do give billions...but not before they built 100 million dollar houses, and sail the open seas in 400 foot long 350 million dollar yachts. it is only after their future is secured and they are in want of absolutely nothing that the "charitable" donations start to come.

[xanadu]

Nice, elijah, but hardly practical. There are enough 2 legged animals in the world who do whatever they wish, not only crime for money but for the joy of doing damage or hurting/killing someone. To never punish anyone is to allow them free reign. It may not "educate" them to lock them up but it stops them from committing more crimes and gives pause to the ones still running around. Do you think big companies would stop cheating the public if all regulatory and punitive laws were taken off the books or would they embark on a rampage of thievery like what was seen near the turn of the 20th century? The question before us is the best way to ensure compliance.

[william7]

Nice, elijah, but hardly practical

That's because you're an unbeliever. I see a lot of stuff discussed in Immortality Institute forums that seem to be impractical. History is full of examples of people pursuing the impracticable and making it practical.

There are enough 2 legged animals in the world who do whatever they wish, not only crime for money but for the joy of doing damage or hurting/killing someone. To never punish anyone is to allow them free reign. It may not "educate" them to lock them up but it stops them from committing more crimes and gives pause to the ones still running around.

And the threat of punishment isn't stopping them. They may pause, but only for the time it takes to figure out a better way to avoid the punishment. What the news media shows on the nightly news is only the most notorious examples. Much more is going on.

The question before us is the best way to ensure compliance.

The question before us should be how can we create a society where people have the necessary character and intelligence to not commit acts that need a punitive response to begin with. I believe the right improvements in communal education could show the way this can be done.