Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
That seems a rather paternalistic approach to damages. And do you think that it should be applied in other types of claims?
|
I agree it's paternalistic - I don't think there is any 'correct' solution, but I think in this especially unique case it merits discussion.
Probably impossible to apply this kind of thinking to other types of claims, and probably not a good idea. But the current 'damages' system is far from ideal. Certain damages warrant huge payouts, while others don't.
Not sure what a solution would be. In a cases where huge punitive damages are awarded in addition to the initial remedy, I'm not sure that money should be going exclusively to the complainant. Spitballing hypotheticals here, but I'd rather see that money funneled towards charities/programs that counter-act the infraction and benefit society as a whole (with no tax benefit to payee). Let's use football as a theoretical - say a court determined the NFL was so grossly negligent about concussions that they owed complainants $1B in damages, + $5B in punitive damages. The punitives could/should go to brain research, and a fund to help all people suffering from brain damage (especially from lower levels of competitive sports) - not directly to the complainants.
Totally spitballing here, and I know it's probably not realistic. In my example, let's say $100K NPV/yr to Khadr for life (~50 yrs) = $5M. The other $5M could/should go to combat child soldier problems. But, the payee should derive no benefit/good-will from the payment. Quantifying non-tangible damages is a pretty wacky exercise in itself to begin with.