My two cents on punitive damages (by the way, I am an attorney): The real issue is not how much a punitive award should be, but rather who should profit from it. If the trial bar truly believes its mantra that massive punitive damage awards are necessary to punish the corporate wrongdoer and deter others from similar conduct, how does it follow that those non-compensatory awards should go to the plaintiff and his/her attorney? Would not this money, which is essentially a fine levied for the common good, do more for the common good if dedicated, at least in large part, to charitable organizations or civic or public services? After all, the punishment to the defendant is the same, and society as a whole benefits. Or could it be that massive punitive damage awards are invariably sought in personal injury and product liability cases exactly because this does not happen?

I agree that we should be outraged when we encounter corporate indifference to the public safety. I also feel that we should be outraged at a legal system that provides a financial incentive to plaintiff's attorneys to put their hands in the pocket of every American who pays insurance premiums or purchases goods or services. Our legal system can and should compensate victims. Compensatory damages are designed to do just that. However, when it is determined that non-compensatory punishment in the form of punitive damages is warranted, our legal system is also very effective at redistribution of wealth and unjust enrichment.

When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.