Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Clodfobble
Okay, so you polluted my river, and I take you to court. The judge decides you are criminally liable for my kid's cancer and my kidney failure.
Does the judge just get to decide how much it's worth? Is it straight-up medical bills and no punitive damages, since that's all that's "measurable?" What if a different judge thinks it's worth more? Perhaps it's okay if the government issued some guidelines as to how much various forms of endangerment are worth, with regards to both financial damages and criminal sentencing?
Guidelines... what's another word for legally-binding guidelines? Oh yeah, regulations on business.
|
I believe juries recommend punative damages, but judges have the final say. It would be best if each situation were judged on a case-by-case basis. Someone whose lawn dies due to pollution obviously has less damages than someone whose children die.
Whether or not one judge would give more than another is irrelevant. Judges are given discretion and they should retain it. There should be no guidelines.
Also, regulations are not guidelines. They are laws. Guidelines are merely suggestions. The U.S. government is not given any authority to regulate business. It can regulate interstate commerce (buying and selling over state lines) but not what products a business may sell, where they can do business within a state, how many products they may manufacture, what safety features they must or must not include, etc.