Before Big Show decided to use the SCOTUS decision in Louisiana v. Kennedy as cover for the Federalist Society talking points, I found myself considering the “punishment” that the Court found appropriate on for an individual defendant and a corporate one.
If you’re going to allow capital punishment at all, the rape of a child seems more than a reasonable basis for it. As long as a state can demonstrate that the process was fair – that the defendant was represented by adequate counsel, no gross errors in evidentiary process, the judge was not of the “hanging” variety – then if they want to execute someone for this crime, so be it. I simply do not understand why the Court found this violated the 8th Amendment.
By contrast, if your employee is drunk, in dereliction of duty (by not being on the bridge), and through the direct result of his failures, causes one of the worst ecological disasters in history of the Republic, how do you conclude that this is only worth a punitive slap on the wrist? ($500 million is – at current oil prices – about one week’s profit for Exxon Mobil.)
In Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, a duly constituted jury found that Exxon should get $5 Billion in punitive damages tacked on to its clean up costs. This was to economically compensate the people who livelyhood they destroyed. They didn’t violate a law, or any jurisprudential principle that I’m aware of. The whole discussion of a 1:1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages in the pursuit of basic fairness is certainly outside the scope of anything the Framer’s dreamed of.
So what are we to make of this?
Go read the Exxon case. There’s been a long history of maritime common law that limited punitive damages for the negligent actions of a vessel operator on the vessel owner.
In terms of the Louisiana case, this is a classic example of Dr. Bombay’s favorite justices once again coming to the conclusion that they know better than everyone else and should go ahead and legislate accordingly. In other words, judicial review spinning wildly out of control…
As for the Exxon case, Big Show is right. Theres some bizarre maritime rule that they invoked. Its utterly ridiculous, seeing as though the purpose of punitive damages is to punish the wrongdoer and $500 million is mere chump change to Exxon.
I’d also like to note that the Ninth Circuit sat on this case for four years before issuing its initial decision. The original trial for this case concluded sometime in the mid 90s. Shouldn’t having to go through 15 years of appeals somehow violate notions of due process?
I did read it. First, I don’t know how persuasive I find the common law argument given that there a statutory scheme “saving for suitors” the right to sue in state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Now I’m aware that this requires the states to apply maritime law under the “reverse Erie Doctrine,” but nothing that I can see requires that they apply traditional penalty schemes while doing so.
Second, where’s the outrage over the court overstepping the sovereignty of the citizens of Alaska here? The have an elected legislator that established the law, a function court system that followed the law, and a jury decided the case within that law. What’s the problem? If the retreat to the position of States Right is so alluring, shouldn’t individual states be allowed to punish corporate transgressor as they would individual citizens?