In a recent letter, an official of a trial lawyers association tells us jurors do the right thing when they award incredibly huge punitive damage awards. His opinion is not surprising when you consider that the lawyers usually get a third of the money.
I have to wonder why the plaintiffs get any money for punitive awards. They are supposed to be fully compensated by the compensatory damage award, which should cover all harm done them. The punitive damages are another, unrelated matter.
The purpose of the punitive award is to deter a wrongdoer from repeating evil behavior, so there is no reason the money should go to the plaintiff and his attorney. It would appear a more logical place would be the state or a worthwhile cause related to the situation.
