Juries fit to decide death -- but not to determine monetary damages?

[Darby]

PLEASE HELP ME SPREAD THIS ARGUMENT AGAINST TORT REFORM:

Why can juries be trusted to decide life or death -- but not monetary damages?

This only makes sense to someone who values money more then human life.

George Bush is calling for litigation "reform" that would limit non-economic damages (pain and suffering) in medical malpractice cases to $250,000 (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3032339).

Let's try to follow the logic here.  A doctor negligently injures or kills someone and, out of concern that the jury is somehow going to *screw up* and make an incorrect determination, the jury's authority to place a value on the resulting suffering is limited by statute to $250,000.  A jury can, however, render the ultimate penalty in a criminal case - death.   Why not the same concern about a jury screw up in death penalty cases?

This is a "greater includes the lesser" problem.  If the jury is fit to exercise the greatest power, the ultimate power, to decide that a life should be ended, does it make sense that a jury would not be fit to determine how much money pain and suffering related to a death (or grievous injury) is worth?  Such a limitation seems nonsensical.

And as we all know, George Bush, proponent of life when politically convenient, was also an enthusiastic supporter of the death penalty while governor of Texas.

Why does George Bush think that juries are fit to decide death but not to determine an amount of monetary damages for pain and suffering? If a jury is not competent to figure out an amount of money to award, certainly the jury is not competent to decide to end a life. Shouldn't we value life more than money?  Shouldn't we therefore place the greatest safeguards on the process that could end life, not the process to award money?

[PurityOfEssence]

1. Get a grip; money is more important than life in this country

It always has been, too; that's what this country's all about.

[angstlessk]

2. That, my friend, is a very logical argument.

I only regret that it didn't occur to me when I read about the limits on the awards in litigation cases. I think people here are very well informed and extremely intelligent, at least from what I have read that is my conclusion. I hope this gets around. I will e-mail it to all on my list. Thanks for being so thoughtful, not in that polite way that you send birthday cards to obscure relatives, but thoughtful in the way that leads to expose hypocritical laws and arguments.

[kanrok]

3. Don't be silly!

People who are sentenced to death are not Georgie's constituents! But insurance companies and big corporations...well, we need to protect them! (sarcasm off). Seriously though, that is a great argument. I've been arguing against tort reform for years. This argument resonates with "regular" people. Tort reformers will always find a way to argue their way around common sense. I've used this to great success with people who have no vested interest. Those who want tort "reform" ignore this. Those who are bold enough to argue in the face of this logic say that jurors "intuitively" know right from wrong, and therefore are well equipped to decide the fate of criminals. But when it comes to deciding damages in cases where people are severely injured or killed because of the negligence of others, they are ill-equipped to make those kinds of judgments. It's absolute horse shit, but that's their best argument.
What amazes me the most about this debate is that doctors truly believe that tort "reform" is the answer to all their problems. They have been co-opted by insurance companies, and it makes absolutely no sense. I feel sorry for doctors in our current environment. Their liability insurance is up and their reimbursables are down. The common denominator here is the insurance companies. The very entities the doctors align themselves with are the culprits with their hand in the doctors pockets. Lastly, special rules for doctors and hospitals make no sense from a fairness perspective. It is totally illogical that if you get hit by a truck on the street in front of the hospital and get killed, your damages are limitless. But if negligence by the hospital staff, mere feet away takes your life, we need to cap those damages. You're still just as dead.

[Padraig18]

4. The irony is exquisite, is it not?

:eyes: