Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Ligand (LGND) Breakout! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Vector1 who wrote (13715)	1/25/1998 10:36:00 AM
From: tonyt	Respond to of 32384

> If all the money went to the gov no one would seek punis and in some > cases they are justified. That's my point. Punitive damages are to punish the defendant, not enrich the plaintiff. I'm all for punishing the defendant, but should the plaintif (and his lawyer) really be entitled to winnings from a 'legal lottery'? Who is punishing the defendant so as to prevent him from repeating pratices that brought him in front of a jury in the first place? I don't beleive in reducing punitive damages, as in many cases they are justified -- I just believe in putting the money to better use. The size of punitive damages are so out of line with compensatory damages that a lawer would be a bad businessman if he didn't 'file the papers' and take a shot at jury sympathy. Its all about money -- not justice (or punshment) --Tony