http://news.yahoo.com/texas-woman-loses-iraq-rape-case-against-kbr-210931043.htm

The whole thing reeks.  Her lawyers weren't able to get in the physical evidence of a rape!  WTF is that!

"I just thought that the physical evidence would help. I guess the fact that my entire life was on display and (his) wasn't" made a difference, Jones said.

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-woman-loses-iraq-rape-case-against-kbr-210931043.htm

The whole thing reeks.  Her lawyers weren't able to get in the physical evidence of a rape!  WTF is that!

"I just thought that the physical evidence would help. I guess the fact that my entire life was on display and (his) wasn't" made a difference, Jones said.


Sounds like she got screwed again

I see this was a civil case. Was there also a criminal trial? ???

I see this was a civil case. Was there also a criminal trial? ???


When the rape occurred the DOD allowed contractors to stipulate, as a condition of employment, the sexual assault cases would be resolved through internal arbitration, not as a criminal matter.  Now they can only do that if they receive less than $1M.  Yes, that is right.

"Due in part to Jones' case, federal lawmakers in 2009 approved a measure prohibiting contractors and subcontractors that receive $1 million in funds from the Department of Defense from requiring employees to resolve sexual assault allegations and other claims through arbitration."

They did it.  KBR is just licensed crime. 

I'm sorry if that young woman expected justice.
::)

They did it.  KBR is just licensed crime. 

I'm sorry if that young woman expected justice.
::)


Justice?  Justice?  We got nothin to do with justice, we goes by the law

From that article:
Her attorney had asked jurors to award her as much as 5 percent of KBR's net worth in actual or punitive damages. That would be more than $114 million, the Houston Chronicle reported.

Does anyone else find that vaguely distasteful, and think that an exaggerated claim for punitive damages might actually have worked against her?

From that article:
Does anyone else find that vaguely distasteful, and think that an exaggerated claim for punitive damages might actually have worked against her?




Much less distasteful then what happened to her, and considering the circumstances she should have gotten everything her lawyers asked for her. 

When the rape occurred the DOD allowed contractors to stipulate, as a condition of employment, the sexual assault cases would be resolved through internal arbitration, not as a criminal matter.  Now they can only do that if they receive less than $1M.  Yes, that is right.

"Due in part to Jones' case, federal lawmakers in 2009 approved a measure prohibiting contractors and subcontractors that receive $1 million in funds from the Department of Defense from requiring employees to resolve sexual assault allegations and other claims through arbitration."


There is no way that private individuals or corporations can enter into contracts that supercede criminal law.  Criminal charges can only be brought by the government. Arbitration is an instrument of civil/tort law, not criminal law.

From what I have been able to find on the web, the 'authorities' investigated and did not bring forth any criminal charges.

Civil charges are a whole 'nother thing and yes, two entities CAN enter into a contract that forces disputes to arbitration. (Well until the new law was put into place).

There is no way that private individuals or corporations can enter into contracts that supercede criminal law.  Criminal charges can only be brought by the government. Arbitration is an instrument of civil/tort law, not criminal law.

From what I have been able to find on the web, the 'authorities' investigated and did not bring forth any criminal charges.

Civil charges are a whole 'nother thing and yes, two entities CAN enter into a contract that forces disputes to arbitration. (Well until the new law was put into place).


Criminal law in the United States.  The stipulation is for those on foreign soil where our laws don't hold sway.

Much less distasteful then what happened to her, and considering the circumstances she should have gotten everything her lawyers asked for her. 


It might have, but it wasn't the deciding factor.  The court could have reduced the damages award drastically.  A cool million and an apology might have done the trick.  However, if KBR admitted culpability in Jones' case, they might also have opened a Pandora's box of litigation. 

The defense contends Jones did not say she was raped immediately after it happened.  Two factors at work here:
1. Shock.
2. Fear.
People under extreme duress often "carry on as usual" so they don't fall completely apart.  It's a survival instinct.  Also...
If Jones' had cried rape the next day she might have got, you know, disappeared.
:o

Much less distasteful then what happened to her, and considering the circumstances she should have gotten everything her lawyers asked for her. 

Sorry, but over $100m?  I don't mean to play down what happened to her in any way, but that's an obscene amount of money to be arguing for.  You can almost see the $ signs in her lawyer's eyes at the 30% he's wanting to take as his cut.. do you think it possible that suing for such a ridiculously huge amount of money might actually have gone against her?

Brief aside about the US legal system: why do punitive damages get paid to the victim?  Isn't that what the actual damages are for?  For example, in this case if punitive damages were paid into a fund to help rape victims or subsidize their legal bills, would that not make for a better all-round outcome?

Sorry, but over $100m?  I don't mean to play down what happened to her in any way, but that's an obscene amount of money to be arguing for.  You can almost see the $ signs in her lawyer's eyes at the 30% he's wanting to take as his cut.. do you think it possible that suing for such a ridiculously huge amount of money might actually have gone against her?

Brief aside about the US legal system: why do punitive damages get paid to the victim?  Isn't that what the actual damages are for?  For example, in this case if punitive damages were paid into a fund to help rape victims or subsidize their legal bills, would that not make for a better all-round outcome?


Punitive damages are there are damages specifically targeted to punish the perpetrator.  High punitive damages are used to let the offending party and every one else know that the conduct was so egregious the are getting spanked.  Low punitive means you did wrong, but we are going to give you a warning not to try it again. 

Corporation make it perfectly clear the only thing that matters to them is money.  They don't merely admit it, they celebrate it.  So, the only way to punish corporations is to take their money away.

Punitive damages are there are damages specifically targeted to punish the perpetrator.  High punitive damages are used to let the offending party and every one else know that the conduct was so egregious the are getting spanked.  Low punitive means you did wrong, but we are going to give you a warning not to try it again. 

I realize that - what I was asking is why punitive damages are paid to the victim, given that the actual damages are what is intended as recompense for whatever happened to them.

..with the supplementary question of whether an excessively high level of punitive damages being claimed may actually work against the claimant.


Corporation make it perfectly clear the only thing that matters to them is money.  They don't merely admit it, they celebrate it.  So, the only way to punish corporations is to take their money away.

Which, I guess, is why the levels of punitive damages claimable is a percentage of turnover rather than relating to the actual damage caused.

Punitive damages are there are damages specifically targeted to punish the perpetrator.  High punitive damages are used to let the offending party and every one else know that the conduct was so egregious the are getting spanked.  Low punitive means you did wrong, but we are going to give you a warning not to try it again. 





I realize that - what I was asking is why punitive damages are paid to the victim, given that the actual damages are what is intended as recompense for whatever happened to them.



I don't think I can make it any plainer.  Punitive damages are paid above and beyond the actual damages to specifically punish the perpetrator. They are not awarded as recompense to the victim, they are added as a punishment.  It is possible for a judge or jury to just give the award without punitive damages, but not the other way around.

I don't think I can make it any plainer.  Punitive damages are paid above and beyond the actual damages to specifically punish the perpetrator. They are not awarded as recompense to the victim, they are added as a punishment.  It is possible for a judge or jury to just give the award without punitive damages, but not the other way around.

I don't think I can make it any plainer: why are they paid to the victim?

The victim already gets awarded damages to make up for what has been done to them.  If punitive damages are deemed necessary to teach the offender a lesson, why is it part of the judicial process for the money to go to the victim?  It's not justice - it's definitely not fair.  Wouldn't a far better system be to pay punitive damages into a legal fund for supporting victims who aren't "lucky" enough to have crimes committed against them by rich perpetrators?

I don't think I can make it any plainer: why are they paid to the victim?

The victim already gets awarded damages to make up for what has been done to them.  If punitive damages are deemed necessary to teach the offender a lesson, why is it part of the judicial process for the money to go to the victim?  It's not justice - it's definitely not fair.  Wouldn't a far better system be to pay punitive damages into a legal fund for supporting victims who aren't "lucky" enough to have crimes committed against them by rich perpetrators?


The issue here is torts and tort reform.  This is very controversial in the United States.  Corporations want a cap on all damages.  Trial lawyers want to be able to sue for what they deem is the just claim for damages done.  If you set a limit on damages awards (compensatory, speculative, punitive, or otherwise) you could let sleazy corporations off the hook for negligence.  For example, if General Motors knowingly skimps on brake safety standards, and you get crippled for life because of a brake failure crash, GM can write you a check for $100,000 and call it a day.  A hundred grand isn't going to pay for a year's worth of medical expenses let alone a lifetime of lost earnings, pain, and suffering. 

On the other hand, if you get pissed at Joe's Pub and break your ankle falling down the stairs, you can file the dreaded "frivolous law suit" in which you claim old Joe didn't install the proper guardrail to stop your drunken ass from falling.  If the jury socks Joe with a hundred grand in punitive damages, Joe locks his doors, lays off his employees, files bankruptcy, and you get nothing. 

Jones' case against KBR falls somewhere in the middle.  The crime was atrocious, but the employees who committed the crime were not doing so in compliance with stated KBR policy.  At least I don't think the KBR handbook says it's okay to rape your fellow employees.

It's a question of jurisprudence whether punitive damages per se should be awarded to the plaintiff above and beyond compensatory damages.  If the company's neglect was egregious, as in the hypothetical GM brakes case, you can understand the plaintiff benefiting from the punishment of the company.  In the case of KBR, the question becomes murky.  Mind you, the court didn't find KBR guilty to start with but if they had, you could understand a hefty compensatory settlement being awarded to Jones for injury, personal loss, and emotional distress.  However, as much we hate privateering defense contractors such as KBR, it's hard to see our way to awarding a gigantic punitive damages settlement unless the defense could demonstrate the company itself wantonly and explicitly put Jones in harm's way. 

I don't think we've heard the last of the KBR case because KBR appears to have covered for the criminal behavior of its employees even if it did not permit it at the outset.

In the case of KBR, the question becomes murky.  Mind you, the court didn't find KBR guilty to start with but if they had, you could understand a hefty compensatory settlement being awarded to Jones for injury, personal loss, and emotional distress.  However, as much we hate privateering defense contractors such as KBR, it's hard to see our way to awarding a gigantic punitive damages settlement unless the defense could demonstrate the company itself wantonly and explicitly put Jones in harm's way. 
..or negligently failed to prevent her being in harm's way?


I don't think we've heard the last of the KBR case because KBR appears to have covered for the criminal behavior of its employees even if it did not permit it at the outset.

Which would count as conspiracy, would it not? Leaving KBR open to post-hoc damages (if only for the really rather non-trivial distress caused by ones employer siding with the perpetrators)

Have to say that (and you might find this hard to believe) the standards that the US holds its corporations to overseas are an order of magnitude better than we do here: although politicians pay lip service to the idea of ethical standards and accountability for UK companies' foreign dealings, when it actually comes to prosecuting companies which don't behave, if anything political pressure on the appropriate investigating agencies seems to be stopping them from doing their jobs rather than the other way round.