The defendants no doubt worry that juries might be even more likely to make large awards if the money is going to the state (i.e., the juries will receive some of the benefits) than if it just goes to the plantiffs and lawyers.

What a bizarre idea. What is the point?

Avoiding unjust enrichment.

So why not just pass legislation to cap it? Does this mean the state should be allowed to appear at trial or on appeal to support the plaintiff?

OJ: Mixed thoughts on this one. Surely you're not suggesting the state can't be unjustly enriched?

John:

The state's not a party to the suit.

Peter:

Because punitive damages in a private suit may be a preferable enforcement mechanism to state regulation/intervention.

Caps have an appeal, but the point of punitive damages is to hurt enough to cause the defendants to change their behavior.

If the caps are low enough to affect the majority of cases, it'll be too low to change the behavior of giant companies.

Perhaps there could be sliding caps, based on the gross revenues of the defendants, like traffic tickets in Finland.

Orrin--

Indeed, but jury members may reason that if they vote one way, the state gets no money, but if they vote the other, then the large corporation pays additional money to the state. I can see those on the Left rationalizing it as additional taxation.

Orrin:

1) A party who has a financial interest in the outcome has a right to be heard. I would be amazed if an attempt to restrict this wasn't shot down constitutionally. What if the parties try to settle out of court? Do they need the state's approval? Does it still get its cut?

2) When have you ever heard of a state behaving against its financial interests in the name of the public good, especially over time?

Peter:

It creates an incentive for out of court settlements and takes away an incentive for plaintiff's attorneys to even bring cases.

John:

It taxes misbehavior. I'm all for that.

Orrin:

If by misbehaviour you mean the defendant's conduct, no it doesn't. It taxes the plaintiff. Who are you blaming here? Misbehaving defendants or greedy plaintiffs?

Mr. Judd;

It's tax farming, one of the things that brought down the Roman Empire. How long do you think it will be before the court system is funded via these awards? Once that happens, the current activism in the court system will look positively quaint.

Peter:

Both--and lawyers--that's the beauty.

aog:

Don't use the money for the courts.

California isn't the first state to propose or enact such a scheme.
From the article:

"In the mid-1980s, eight other states -- Alaska, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Oregon, and Utah -- introduced the same kind of "split recovery" scheme. Most states require a fixed percentage (ranging from 50% to 75%) of the punitive damage awards to be allocated to the state. But in Illinois, the trial court has total discretion over the extent of apportionment.

States also differ as to which cases such schemes affect. Most split-recovery states apply the scheme to all cases in which punitive damages are available and awarded, but Georgia applies it only to products liability cases, and Iowa applies it only where the jury determines that the defendant's misconduct was not directed specifically at the individual plaintiff. [...]

Finally, the schemes differ with respect to the recipient of the monies. In Alaska, Georgia, and Utah, the state's portion is deposited into a general revenue fund, while other states have established specialized funds. For example, Missouri deposits its portion into a fund designed to compensate tort plaintiffs unable to collect judgments from insolvent defendants. Oregon distributes its portion to a Criminal Injuries Compensation Account."

If it hasn't corrupted juries, state governments, or the courts in the above states, it's unlikely to do so in California.

I think this could be disastrous. As Peter above said early on, why not just cap the punitive awards. Juries, quite frankly, might do the terrible things, like lowering compensatory damages with the idea that they will beef up the school board budget with added punitive damages.

The misbehavior, you refer to could always be addressed with criminal law. Also, all the revenue going to the state would be considered General Revenue, by the state, and in turn they will began to treat it as a cash cow, by passing laws making punitive damages even more likely.

Because Democrats won't cap awards.

Then Republican judges can do what Democratic legislatures won't do. (the reverse of what's been happenning for the last 70 years)

Michael

I defer to your greater knowledge (assuming you are a lawyer) about other states doing it, however I demur regarding your acessment that corruption is not still a threat in the states you refer to.

Orrin:

C'mon, you can't let your disgust for tort lawyers lead you to grab onto wacky (and very statist) ideas that don't tak into account the reality of the legal process. So Democrats won't cap awards. They don't fight very hard for freedom either. Elect more Republicans.

Seriously: A) capped punitive and pain and suffering damages; B) restrictions on contingency fees C;) restrictions on the rights of juries to determine the quantum of damages; and D:) cost awards personally against parties and lawyers who pursue losing causes, are all more promising avenues.

AOG:

Until the 17th or 18th century, judges were paid directly by the litigants. Of course, they didn't have contingency fees. No offence, but that is a particularly American contribution to civilization that ranks right up there with Britney Spears.

Peter:

Politics is the art of the possible, not the pipe dream.

Oversimplifying, Massachusetts doesn't have punitive damages. We have multiple damages for certain particular practices, limited to two or three times the compensatory damages, plus attorney's fees. The decision of whether and to double or triple damages belongs to the judge, although he can ask the jury for its (nonbinding) opinion. Also, the plaintiff is not allowed to ask for a specific sum as compensatory damages either in the complaint or in arguments to the jury. Works just fine.

David:

Sounds emminently sensible. We have capped pain and suffering of about a quarter of a million (that's for a 20 year old quadripalegic) and rules on punitives that are so strict you'd better have a front page news story to even try. How come Canada and Mass. are so sensible on this issue?

SCOTUS has already said that punies must be limited to a single digit multiple of actual damages.