to me, emotional distress is worth whatever time off you may need and any counselling you may need, perhaps even doubling the amount for the inconvenience. if she is never able to work again, $500k is a reasonable sum...
Like I said before, you can argue about the amount. Should it be more, should it be less? All I know for sure is -
- 500K sounds like an awful lot
- I have no idea what a good amount actually is
One thing to note is what you said about if she could work again - in that case, damages would likely be X for emotional distress and the like, as well as expected lifetime earnings from her career, which are likely way more than 500K. Civil cases are actually pretty good about this, in general - you get the ridiculously high amounts from civil cases because of punitive damages. Without that, judges in small claims court, for instance, are very meticulous about how much you get from settlements.
i view accountability as a significantly better punishment.
It's much better for deterrence for future and current agents of the state to not abuse their powers. But again, it does nothing for restitution, which was the point I've been trying to make.
I don't know how Europe or other places do it, but in Canada we handle lawsuits very differently than the US. We don't allow suing for punitive purposes or award anything for 'emotional distress'. You can only sue for damages.
Meaning in this case, the woman had no suit at all, unless she missed time at work as a result. Then she could sue for lost wages.
But what about the cop? Well, if the cop did something that was wrong, then he broke a law, which means he's eligible for a criminal charge. He would have been charged with some form of assault or harassment.
Because that's what he did.
Allowing people to sue for profit causes numerous problems. Frivolous lawsuits, and skipping pressing criminal charges because a civil suit is more lucrative, are two of the biggest.
I know my opinion is more than a little biased, but I'm gonna have to side with Canada on this one.
It is much harder to be a professional victim here, and our criminals (usually) have to face their charges rather than purchase their freedom.
This police force would not have been able to buy off the victim. They would have had to accept responsibility, and would have been held accountable. More training of officers, or firing of inadequate management.
@Fluf, pinging you since you may also be interested.
Allowing people to sue for profit causes numerous problems. Frivolous lawsuits, and skipping pressing criminal charges because a civil suit is more lucrative, are two of the biggest.
Of course, you can still be fined or jailed for bringing frivolous lawsuits here as well. And if you bring a civil case and lose, you sometimes can also be forced to pay any legal fees for the other party, if they had any.
our criminals (usually) have to face their charges rather than purchase their freedom.
This is blatantly incorrect here as well - no one can buy their freedom (at least not legally, I can't speak about corruption on this issue). The State (through the district attorney) is the one who decides whether or not to bring charges and the victim actually has little say in the matter. But for a civil case, the victim may bring a case if it's warranted.
The OJ murder is the simplest example of this. So OJ went and killed some people, and then the state of California brought charges against him for murder. The victims (and families) actually had no say in the matter - California was going to charge him regardless of what they thought. But once he got off (because the prosecution was quite bad, Johnny Cochrane had a brilliant defense, and trust in the police was very low at the time), the victims families' could also bring civil charges against him (which they won, because the burden of proof is lower in civil cases).
So you can't bribe a family to avoid criminal charges, because the family doesn't decide whether or not to charge you. The state does.
As for awarding money for emotional distress and punitive damages - well, whether that's a good idea or not is hard to say, although I think awards have gotten very high in recent years. But even without the emotional distress, her rights were violated to some extent. How much is that worth? I don't know.
And the final note, this wasn't even a civil case brought to court and this award being given. It seems like it was a settlement, so in this case, it's what Salt Lake City and the University of Utah were willing to pay to avoid a civil suit.
to me, emotional distress is worth whatever time off you may need and any counselling you may need, perhaps even doubling the amount for the inconvenience. if she is never able to work again, $500k is a reasonable sum but i view accountability as a significantly better punishment.