Other Contributors

About Us

The contributors to the Consumer Law & Policy blog are lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy. The blog is hosted by Public Citizen Litigation Group, but the views expressed here are solely those of the individual contributors (and don't necessarily reflect the views of institutions with which they are affiliated). To view the blog's policies, please click here.

« Elizabeth Renuart and Diane Thomspon Paper on APR Disclosure | Main | Paper on Google and Privacy »

Wednesday, March 26, 2008


Babel Boy

Indeed. The answer is not to eliminate punitives, for that would only reward the wrong doers.

The answer is in taking the punitives out of the hands of the plaintiffs. Punitives are intended to, what else?, punish. So why should the plaintiff reap a $$$ windfall? The damages should go to . . . well, wherever criminal fines go, and certainly not to the plaintiff and his lawyers.

And it should be the judge, by his jury instructions, who determines whether the case warrants PDs. The plaintiff's case should be only the vehicle of putting evidence before the court -- evidence that may or may not warrant a jury instruction on PD.

Victims of crime have no monetary incentive to seek punishment of the perp, and neither should civil plaintiffs.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Subscribe to CL&P

RSS/Atom Feed

To receive a daily email of Consumer Law & Policy content, enter your email address here:

Search CL&P Blog

Recent Posts

September 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30