Since punitive damages are damages that are used to no award the plaintiff, but they are used to deter the defendant or someone like the defendant, from committing the same offense again. I do not think that the 75% of the damages should go the state. I believe that this wrongs the person who has been wronged, which is the plaintiff. The plaintiff, the person who has been wronged is not being compensated fully for the pain that they suffered. In addition, there are other ways in which the Governor can contribute to the public benefit trust fund without interfering with court cases.
The positive aspect of this is that California can benefit from the funds that they receive during the designated period of time, but what makes it unfair is that people who are involved in the suits are cheated if their judgment happens to fall within the designated period of time. In conclusion, I do not support the proposal, because I believe that it is unfair to those who have been wronged and who are now seeking compensation that will be only a quarter of what the court has decided they deserve.
If you had to argue in favor of this measure, what would you say and why ?
The positive aspect of this is that California can benefit from the funds that they receive during the designated period of time, but what makes it unfair is that people who are involved in the suits are cheated if their judgment happens to fall within the designated period of time. In conclusion, I do not support the proposal, because I believe that it is unfair to those who have been wronged and who are now seeking compensation that will be only a quarter of what the court has decided they deserve.
If you had to argue in favor of this measure, what would you say and why ?