Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > SCOTUS reduces punitive damages on the Exxon Valdez oil spill

SCOTUS reduces punitive damages on the Exxon Valdez oil spill
Thread Tools
peeb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 12:15 PM
 
Looks pretty bad to me, limiting punitive damages to matching actual damages? Looks like file-sharers are held to a higher standard than oil polluters these days.

At stake here is the ability of the courts to provide real deterrents to this kind of behavior.
( Last edited by vmarks; Jun 25, 2008 at 03:11 PM. )
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 03:08 PM
 
It's SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States).

USSC is the United States Sentencing Commission.

One creates rulings, the other creates sentencing guidelines for Federal law.
     
placebo1969
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Washington (the state) USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 05:27 PM
 
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 06:48 PM
 
Actual damages make sense.

No oil company intends to spill oil.
No oil company needs to be punished in order to refrain from spilling oil. The lost investment in extracting and shipping the oil, and the lost potential profit from selling the oil is enough to dissuade from spilling it.

Copyright infringement is different in that there is an ill-intent which some people believe must be dissuaded.

I believe that for many cases, actual damages are appropriate.

If a company poisons the water that runs past my house, I expect to sue and be awarded actual damages, or the company be forced to pay for cleanup (which should amount to the same thing.) This ensures that cleanup won't become a part of the cost of doing business. That's enough.

I only see punitive damages as necessary when a person is impaired for life (personal injury), or deprived of freedom (false arrest, false imprisonment).
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 07:12 PM
 
just guessing that these people have stock in exxon... or i hope that's the case, because otherwise they really think like this... wow
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 07:21 PM
 
Do you believe that Exxon desires to spill oil?

Do you believe that punitive fees will somehow make Exxon desire to spill oil less than they already do?
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 07:53 PM
 
Of course punitive fees make oil companies more careful about spilling oil! How can you possibly argue that lower fees give an equal incentive?
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 09:06 PM
 
yes, moneys talks.

and yes, makes exxon hire better people... wasn't the captain drunk?
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 09:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
Of course punitive fees make oil companies more careful about spilling oil! How can you possibly argue that lower fees give an equal incentive?
Do you actually believe Exxon desires to spill oil?

Do you think they want to lose over $100 per barrel, plus the costs invested in transport, plus the revenue at sale?

If you agree that they really can't afford to lose those costs and revenue, then you agree that they don't want to spill a drop.

If they know that on top of this they'll be made to pay actual damages to undo the harm they've caused, you know they're going to be every bit as careful as they can be.

Punitive damages do nothing useful here.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 09:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Punitive damages do nothing useful here.
Uhm, maybe it will make them fire captains that are known to be drunk on duty ?

-t
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 09:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Do you actually believe Exxon desires to spill oil?

Do you think they want to lose over $100 per barrel, plus the costs invested in transport, plus the revenue at sale?

If you agree that they really can't afford to lose those costs and revenue, then you agree that they don't want to spill a drop.

If they know that on top of this they'll be made to pay actual damages to undo the harm they've caused, you know they're going to be every bit as careful as they can be.

Punitive damages do nothing useful here.
I absolutely disagree that "they really can't afford to lose those costs and revenue." Of course they'd rather not lose that revenue, but it wouldn't (and didn't) put them into bankruptcy, so "can't afford" is too strong a phrase.

In fact, it is clear that in the past the incentives you describe weren't enough to prevent an oil spill. So your argument doesn't even hold for this very specific case. The Valdez spill was absolutely easily preventable. Exxon was not "every bit as careful" as they could have been.

Moreover, you are also wrong that "they'll be made to pay actual damages to undo the harm they've caused." No, this is only 'actual economic damages,' and is certainly not about "undoing" the harm they've caused. Most of the damage can't be undone, but it should still be penalized.

So you are making a number of false statements and then making a false conclusion. Common sense says that higher costs will make oil companies more careful about spilling oil. When your conclusion contradicts common sense, then you have to look for the flaws in your logic.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 10:29 PM
 
So what you're telling me is that the cleanup effort was in vain?

The damage can't be undone? What was all that cleanup effort for?

Exxon should have paid for the cleanup and care of the wildlife, if that's how you define actual damage, and that's it.

What other large spills has Exxon had since the Valdez so many years ago?

Something prevented them from having spills every weekend. What was it?
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 11:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Actual damages make sense.

No oil company intends to spill oil.
No oil company needs to be punished in order to refrain from spilling oil. The lost investment in extracting and shipping the oil, and the lost potential profit from selling the oil is enough to dissuade from spilling it.

Copyright infringement is different in that there is an ill-intent which some people believe must be dissuaded.

I believe that for many cases, actual damages are appropriate.

If a company poisons the water that runs past my house, I expect to sue and be awarded actual damages, or the company be forced to pay for cleanup (which should amount to the same thing.) This ensures that cleanup won't become a part of the cost of doing business. That's enough.

I only see punitive damages as necessary when a person is impaired for life (personal injury), or deprived of freedom (false arrest, false imprisonment).
I wonder what the cost for the "actual damages" of your daughter's terminal cancer caused by that poison would be?

You should really make sure you're getting a payout for all this corporate apologizing you're doing on the board.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 11:32 PM
 
Where does this punitive stuff end? Where do you draw the lines sensibly?

Making people pay for the actual damage they do, and where they harm people irreparably, paying for the care of those people (as I said early on in this thread) is sufficient.

Imposing some huge number, because it emotionally satisfies you to punish something isn't helpful.

I guess I thought justice was about righting wrongs. You guys haven't convinced me otherwise yet.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 11:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Where does this punitive stuff end? Where do you draw the lines sensibly?

Making people pay for the actual damage they do, and where they harm people irreparably, paying for the care of those people (as I said early on in this thread) is sufficient.

Imposing some huge number, because it emotionally satisfies you to punish something isn't helpful.

I guess I thought justice was about righting wrongs. You guys haven't convinced me otherwise yet.
As I pointed out, we're not talking about making "people" pay is not the issue. Making "corporations" pay is.

Let me anticipate the objection to this line of thought: Corporations are people: stock holder and employees. To this I say: No, they're not.

Corporations reduce all the bounds that hold people's behavior in check and subvert humanity in favor of the profit margin. We have seen again and again the willingness of corporations to behave as monstrously as an individual person would swollen with the same power and influence. Their destructive impact on our society must be reigned in and punitive damages are only one of many completely justifiable steps toward that end.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2008, 11:52 PM
 
So, it's not really about justice or paying for the damage caused, it's about you hating corporations?
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 02:34 AM
 
No, it's about holding corporations accountable. As long as being able to not take environmental and human costs seriously can be written off as the cost of doing business, corporations will just tally up whether it is cheaper to have proper safety procedures, or take a chance and pay a fine every now and again. Punitive damages are the equivalent of putting a corporation in jail. It is the only way of holding them accountable.

Without this, if it's cheaper to ignore environmental regulations and pay the occasional fine, then it makes sense too. Only when investors have an interest in holding corporations to the law will they act within the law.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 03:22 AM
 
The fish stocks in those areas havent returned. Lots of fishermen went without enough catch to make any money.
And when you walk on the beaches your foot prints fill with oil to this day.

But the fishermen need to get real skills anyway... I mean who fishes for a living anymore?
..and it's not like you can go swimming on those beaches anyway so what good are they for the economy?

Im glad that after 14 years of Alaskans waiting for payment, and damage control, that they have found they won't be getting it. That'll show those greedy bastards! And send a message to everyone else as well.
Big environment and big-human-rights always trying to pick on poor wittle exxon who is just trying to feed us our energy out of the goodness of its heart.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 08:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
The fish stocks in those areas havent returned. Lots of fishermen went without enough catch to make any money.
And when you walk on the beaches your foot prints fill with oil to this day.
Then it sounds as if actual damages haven't been met yet.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 12:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Then it sounds as if actual damages haven't been met yet.
No ****. Fishermen got an average of 15,000 for their loss of livelihoods, and in the 20 years since Exxon has been litigating, 20% of the claimants have died.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 12:16 PM
 
How was the 15,000 calculated? Loss of income based on historical income averaged over a period of time?

I still see nothing wrong with actual damages, provided actual damages are paid.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 12:23 PM
 
are you for real?

do you work for a large corporation? hold stock? hate the environment?
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 12:26 PM
 
Did you read my post above? What's wrong with actual damages is that corporations frequently decide that paying them (or usually not paying them, but your assumption was that they would be paid) is cheaper than taking proper safety precautions. That's not good enough, especially given that in reality actual damages are rarely paid, and litigation goes on for decades. Seriously, 20% of the claimants are DEAD. Exxon does not take their responsibility seriously. How do we get them to? We let investors know that share price will be affected when corporations do this ****. That will make them fix the problem.

"As long as being able to not take environmental and human costs seriously can be written off as the cost of doing business, corporations will just tally up whether it is cheaper to have proper safety procedures, or take a chance and pay a fine every now and again. Punitive damages are the equivalent of putting a corporation in jail. It is the only way of holding them accountable.

Without this, if it's cheaper to ignore environmental regulations and pay the occasional fine, then it makes sense too. Only when investors have an interest in holding corporations to the law will they act within the law.
"
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 12:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by peeb View Post
Did you read my post above? What's wrong with actual damages is that corporations frequently decide that paying them (or usually not paying them, but your assumption was that they would be paid) is cheaper than taking proper safety precautions. That's not good enough, especially given that in reality actual damages are rarely paid, and litigation goes on for decades. Seriously, 20% of the claimants are DEAD. Exxon does not take their responsibility seriously. How do we get them to? We let investors know that share price will be affected when corporations do this ****. That will make them fix the problem.

"As long as being able to not take environmental and human costs seriously can be written off as the cost of doing business, corporations will just tally up whether it is cheaper to have proper safety procedures, or take a chance and pay a fine every now and again. Punitive damages are the equivalent of putting a corporation in jail. It is the only way of holding them accountable.

Without this, if it's cheaper to ignore environmental regulations and pay the occasional fine, then it makes sense too. Only when investors have an interest in holding corporations to the law will they act within the law.
"

If in every case full actual damages are required, then it becomes better to avoid causing damage in the first place.

This 'punitive' cost notion just gets passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, stockholders (which I am not one), and employees in the form of cost-cutting measures (lost jobs, lower wages.) Of course, employees and stockholders are also consumers, so they get hit twice. You don't actually ever succeed at punishing the corporation unless you put it out of business - in which case you're still punishing the employees and stockholders and customers, who now have reduced choice and competition available.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 01:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
If in every case full actual damages are required, then it becomes better to avoid causing damage in the first place.
Can you justify that statement, because I don't believe that is even remotely true. Aside from the basic fact that full actual damages are never paid, it is impossible and prohibitively expensive to even figure out real damages. Much better to make sure that corporations are aware that it will cost much more than that, and that they will not be able to stall for decades until many of the claimants are dead.

Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
This 'punitive' cost notion just gets passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, stockholders (which I am not one), and employees in the form of cost-cutting measures (lost jobs, lower wages.) Of course, employees and stockholders are also consumers, so they get hit twice. You don't actually ever succeed at punishing the corporation unless you put it out of business - in which case you're still punishing the employees and stockholders and customers, who now have reduced choice and competition available.
Well, this is the point. Employees and stockholders ARE the corporation, so an employee who knows that his employer might well go bankrupt if he doesn't take safety seriously is a good idea from my perspective, plus, stockholders breathing down management's neck to actually take safety seriously would be a lot better than the current desire to shave every cost until so you maximize short term profit and increase risk of an accident.
By making disregard of these things bad for business you create incentives for employees and stockholders to take it seriously. Remember - no one will ever get these punitive damages unless they willfully ignored the law. It's not like these folks are innocent bystanders - they committed a crime.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 01:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
So what you're telling me is that the cleanup effort was in vain?

The damage can't be undone? What was all that cleanup effort for?

Exxon should have paid for the cleanup and care of the wildlife, if that's how you define actual damage, and that's it.

What other large spills has Exxon had since the Valdez so many years ago?

Something prevented them from having spills every weekend. What was it?
No, I certainly don't define actual damage as paying for cleanup and care of the wildlife. I use the same definition as the Supreme Court. I thought that you would use the same definition, too, since that's the whole point of this thread, but it seems like you would rather work in some imaginary world.

Cleaning up doesn't bring back, and hasn't brought back, the dead animals, as el chupacabra says. So yes the damage can't be undone, at least not in only twenty years. Maybe in another twenty or forty years.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 02:49 PM
 
Did Exxon damage the land? Is the land owned by someone? Why isn't that someone being compensated for the actual damage?
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Did Exxon damage the land? Is the land owned by someone? Why isn't that someone being compensated for the actual damage?
OK, let's spell it out:
1. It's taken 20 years of litigation to decide this.
2. Land is no the only thing damaged. Damage to the land is hard to quantify. Ecosystem services are diffuse and hard to untangle who benefits.
3. Fishing industries are affected - nobody 'owns' the fish stocks. Not only fishermen benefit from them, coastal communities suffer massive trickle down damages from the destruction of the ecosystem.
The idea that you could fix this by compensating 'owners' of ecosystems and resources adequately is hopelessly naive.
( Last edited by peeb; Jun 26, 2008 at 05:44 PM. )
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 05:42 PM
 
i hope you're not up to your usual childish pranks with email vmarks
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 07:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
i hope you're not up to your usual childish pranks with email vmarks
I don't know what you're talking about. I don't play pranks, tricks, jokes, or games with email. I'm fairly boring in that regard.

If you want to make an accusation, make it.

Otherwise, take the personal attack back.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 07:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Did Exxon damage the land? Is the land owned by someone? Why isn't that someone being compensated for the actual damage?
Because that isn't what this lawsuit is about. Because a lot of the land is publicly owned. Because a lot of the damaged area is underwater. Are you just playing at being naive? You can answer all these questions yourself, I shouldn't have to hold your hand. I don't get your game. Bye.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 08:11 PM
 
just stop it
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 08:15 PM
 
VMarks - that's pretty ****ing childish. Cut it out. If you have something to say, say it on the board. You are way out of line.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 08:20 PM
 
So make a good counter argument. All I've got so far is "we need punitive damages that really scare everyone, because I wish it were so!"

I like equal treatment under the law. Punitive damages are wildly variable, and not equal treatment. Actual compensation is equal treatment.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 08:23 PM
 
So you haven't read any of the previous posts in the thread?

Here it is again, from where I reposted it after you didn't read it the first time.

Originally Posted by peeb
Did you read my post above? What's wrong with actual damages is that corporations frequently decide that paying them (or usually not paying them, but your assumption was that they would be paid) is cheaper than taking proper safety precautions. That's not good enough, especially given that in reality actual damages are rarely paid, and litigation goes on for decades. Seriously, 20% of the claimants are DEAD. Exxon does not take their responsibility seriously. How do we get them to? We let investors know that share price will be affected when corporations do this ****. That will make them fix the problem.

"As long as being able to not take environmental and human costs seriously can be written off as the cost of doing business, corporations will just tally up whether it is cheaper to have proper safety procedures, or take a chance and pay a fine every now and again. Punitive damages are the equivalent of putting a corporation in jail. It is the only way of holding them accountable.

Without this, if it's cheaper to ignore environmental regulations and pay the occasional fine, then it makes sense too. Only when investors have an interest in holding corporations to the law will they act within the law."
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 08:37 PM
 
No, I read this the first and second time you posted it.

You haven't made it any more compelling this time around. Let's see if I can help you understand why I'm unconvinced by it.


Originally Posted by peeb View Post
So you haven't read any of the previous posts in the thread?

Here it is again, from where I reposted it after you didn't read it the first time.

Originally Posted by peeb
Did you read my post above? What's wrong with actual damages is that corporations frequently decide that paying them (or usually not paying them, but your assumption was that they would be paid) is cheaper than taking proper safety precautions. That's not good enough, especially given that in reality actual damages are rarely paid, and litigation goes on for decades. Seriously, 20% of the claimants are DEAD. Exxon does not take their responsibility seriously. How do we get them to? We let investors know that share price will be affected when corporations do this ****. That will make them fix the problem.
Where is the equitable treatment under law? You want to create a cost that is so staggeringly high as to shock a company into fear of going under. Necessarily, for companies of different sizes, the fee you arrive at must be higher for corporations with higher levels of capital. So there's no equality here, other than "make it high enough to satisfy my wishes."

Originally Posted by peeb

"As long as being able to not take environmental and human costs seriously can be written off as the cost of doing business, corporations will just tally up whether it is cheaper to have proper safety procedures, or take a chance and pay a fine every now and again. Punitive damages are the equivalent of putting a corporation in jail. It is the only way of holding them accountable.
So you've said. But putting a corporation in 'jail' and putting them out of business are separate things. Putting a corporation out of business is like capital punishment to the business, and has a human cost to employees and customers. You don't want to consider that, you're too busy seeking vengeance rather than reparations.

The point of going to court as a plaintiff is to be made whole. Punitive damages do not make the plaintiff whole.
Originally Posted by peeb
Without this, if it's cheaper to ignore environmental regulations and pay the occasional fine, then it makes sense too. Only when investors have an interest in holding corporations to the law will they act within the law."
So, as I have said, make it consistent, every time, rather than occasional.

I get the sense that you're not happy with equal treatment under law, and that nothing will satisfy your bloodthirst but elimination of a business, resulting in the unemployment of thousands. It's a tad ironic that you ignore these results, since you're so concerned about human costs.
     
peeb  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 26, 2008, 08:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Where is the equitable treatment under law?
I don't think equal treatment under the law is a relevant principle in dealing with corporations. They are not treated equally to people. If I kill someone , I go to jail or get the death penalty. If a corporation does it gets a fine.
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
You want to create a cost that is so staggeringly high as to shock a company into fear of going under. Necessarily, for companies of different sizes, the fee you arrive at must be higher for corporations with higher levels of capital. So there's no equality here[
True. It's called a deterrent effect. Again, I don't think equality has a lot to do with it.
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
So you've said. But putting a corporation in 'jail' and putting them out of business are separate things.
Sure, and not every crime would result in a fine that would put them out of business. It would be proportional to the crime. The option to 'execute' the business for particularly egregious crimes should be there though.
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
has a human cost to employees and customers. You don't want to consider that, you're too busy seeking vengeance rather than reparations.
All prison terms and fines have human costs, as do crimes. When we lock someone up or execute them, there is a human cost. We weigh each.
There must be effective deterrents to corporate crimes. It's not vengeance, it's about making a world where everyone, even very wealthy corporations, obey the law, rather than just pay a fine to avoid it.

PS - I don't read my PMs, I get too much spam. If you have something to say, say it in the thread.
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2008, 08:34 PM
 
ExxonMobile should have paid the fine a long time ago without a grumble. The only thing this will cost them, in reality, is bad publicity. I'm surprised they are too daft to understand that, but then the people running businesses like that aren't the most competent people in the world.

I couldn't care less how much they pay in dollars or how much they were supposed to pay, the fact that this matter is still discussed and newsworthy is a sad indication that the company is run by inept monkeys.

Twenty years and Exxon hasn't been able to kiss and make up?! Idiots.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2008, 01:29 PM
 
"You're Bud Nesbitt... Apollo 13 wrecker."
"Apollo 13 was an accident!"
"Oh, sure it was. Just like the captain of the Exxon Valdez didn't see Alaska floatin' there."
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2008, 06:45 PM
 
Huh. This thread is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
Do you actually believe Exxon desires to spill oil?

Do you think they want to lose over $100 per barrel, plus the costs invested in transport, plus the revenue at sale?

If you agree that they really can't afford to lose those costs and revenue, then you agree that they don't want to spill a drop.

If they know that on top of this they'll be made to pay actual damages to undo the harm they've caused, you know they're going to be every bit as careful as they can be.

Punitive damages do nothing useful here.
This post is astoundingly illogical. I'm actually shocked.

If the company knows that they'll have to pay the damages they caused by their actions, they'll be careful? WTF?! So what happens if the damages caused by their actions are less than the benefit they receive by doing these actions, genius? This particular example isn't a good one because of it's massive scale, but this type of behaviour goes on all the time: companies break the law, but the "slap on the wrist" they receive is not nearly as much as the company "saves" by breaking the law. See: many, many shocking examples of environmental pollution resulting in enormous taxpayer cost for reclamation, at only small cost to the offending company.

Whether Exxon desires to spill oil (as in this case) is irrelevant; the facts of the matter show that Exxon was negligent or even grossly negligent in preventing this disaster. Your argument makes absolute zero sense; I don't want to slam my car into another vehicle, but if I knowingly drive with extreme recklessness and slam into another car, then I'm an idiot and I deserve for the judge to slam me with an fine for being such an idiot. I believe that's called "punishment."

Fixing the damage you caused to others is (or should be) automatic. If your action(s) in causing that damage are found to be negligent/stupid/idiotic, then maybe you should be punished for not taking the required steps to prevent the damage.

[QUOTE=vmarks;3681515]Where is the equitable treatment under law? You want to create a cost that is so staggeringly high as to shock a company into fear of going under. Necessarily, for companies of different sizes, the fee you arrive at must be higher for corporations with higher levels of capital. So there's no equality here, other than "make it high enough to satisfy my wishes."[quote]
What does this even mean? Setting punitive damages at different levels based on the individual involved is equitable treatment under law. Hence, the term "punitive": what's punishment for one may not be for another. Go look it up.

So you've said. But putting a corporation in 'jail' and putting them out of business are separate things. Putting a corporation out of business is like capital punishment to the business, and has a human cost to employees and customers. You don't want to consider that, you're too busy seeking vengeance rather than reparations.
No, you're too busy seeking "punitive measures to ensure this does not happen again." See: punitive definition.

The point of going to court as a plaintiff is to be made whole. Punitive damages do not make the plaintiff whole.
Also ridiculous. Do you even understand the concept of "punitive damages?" You seem to be struggling here.

So, as I have said, make it consistent, every time, rather than occasional.
By "occasional" you don't happen to mean "when the situation requires" do you? That's what judges do with punitive damages, see.

I get the sense that you're not happy with equal treatment under law, and that nothing will satisfy your bloodthirst but elimination of a business, resulting in the unemployment of thousands. It's a tad ironic that you ignore these results, since you're so concerned about human costs.
Oh, Exxon is just so ready to go under because of this. So ready.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2008, 09:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Huh. This thread is ridiculous.


This post is astoundingly illogical. I'm actually shocked.
You seem to be late to this thread.
If the company knows that they'll have to pay the damages they caused by their actions, they'll be careful? WTF?! So what happens if the damages caused by their actions are less than the benefit they receive by doing these actions, genius? This particular example isn't a good one because of it's massive scale, but this type of behaviour goes on all the time: companies break the law, but the "slap on the wrist" they receive is not nearly as much as the company "saves" by breaking the law. See: many, many shocking examples of environmental pollution resulting in enormous taxpayer cost for reclamation, at only small cost to the offending company.
See, you don't seem to understand. Taxpayers should never have to pay any costs for reclamation if the company which caused the damage is paying for the actual damages.

We agree that taxpayers shouldn't pay for the damage caused by someone other than a public employee (employee of the taxpayers, you see.)


Whether Exxon desires to spill oil (as in this case) is irrelevant; the facts of the matter show that Exxon was negligent or even grossly negligent in preventing this disaster. Your argument makes absolute zero sense; I don't want to slam my car into another vehicle, but if I knowingly drive with extreme recklessness and slam into another car, then I'm an idiot and I deserve for the judge to slam me with an fine for being such an idiot. I believe that's called "punishment."
If you're an idiot and you damage another car, you need to be made to pay for the damage you caused. I believe that's called 'justice.' Punishment is variable, subject to whim, and not equitable.
Fixing the damage you caused to others is (or should be) automatic. If your action(s) in causing that damage are found to be negligent/stupid/idiotic, then maybe you should be punished for not taking the required steps to prevent the damage.
That's one view. If we find that fixing the damage caused to others is not automatic, then that's what courts are good for - seeking to be made whole.
[qote]

[QUOTE=vmarks;3681515]Where is the equitable treatment under law? You want to create a cost that is so staggeringly high as to shock a company into fear of going under. Necessarily, for companies of different sizes, the fee you arrive at must be higher for corporations with higher levels of capital. So there's no equality here, other than "make it high enough to satisfy my wishes."
What does this even mean? Setting punitive damages at different levels based on the individual involved is equitable treatment under law. Hence, the term "punitive": what's punishment for one may not be for another. Go look it up.
So it isn't equitable, it's whatever a judge or jury determines to be enough. Well, that's not very reassuring. It says that instead of a system of law, we end up with a system based on people's whims.
No, you're too busy seeking "punitive measures to ensure this does not happen again." See: punitive definition.
Can you ever ensure BADEVENT never happens again? No. Can you inequitably and unjustly harm BADACTOR in the process of trying to punish/seek vengeance against them? Sure.
Also ridiculous. Do you even understand the concept of "punitive damages?" You seem to be struggling here.
I understand why people want so-called-punitive-damages. I think it's revealed as flawed idea when confronted with principles. Sure, you want to make BADGUY pay, pay for what he's done, so that he never does it again! But you know what? That's not achievable. If you look at repeat offenders, you see that, well, they repeat. So what's your answer? The fine isn't high enough? Where does that end, and how do you administer it equally to others?
By "occasional" you don't happen to mean "when the situation requires" do you? That's what judges do with punitive damages, see.


Oh, Exxon is just so ready to go under because of this. So ready.

greg
This is what you don't see: It's not about ExxonMobil. It's about how you have a system of justice that treats plaintiffs and defendants equitably from one case to another.

What happens when you have one plaintiff who sues a defendant and is awarded punitive damages based on the harm done to other people? It means one person gets the award and the other people who have a right to similar recompense and treatment are harmed - by the punitive award. If the plaintiff really was awarded the punitive damages based on the harm to others, and the award is upheld, could later plaintiffs find themselves unable to collect because a company goes bankrupt due to the first plaintiff's award? Should the later plaintiffs sue the first plaintiff for their 'share' ?

Punitive awards are problematic, and they will continue to be problematic.

My copy of the Constitution does not contain a 'punitive damages' clause.
I expect we aren't getting rid of them anytime soon. I believe it isn't the domain of judges to determine the 1:1 or 1:single digits award ratio - limits seem to me to be the domain of legislators. I also think http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-896.ZD.html ought to be a majority opinion. The last thing we need is judicial guidance that isn't guidance at all.

Thank you, and good night.
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2008, 09:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling View Post
...we're not talking about making "people" pay is not the issue. Making "corporations" pay is.
This is the point at which all rationality went out the window. How can you argue business with someone who lacks basic business sense?
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:20 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,