Punitive Damages

The plaintiff gets the punitive damages because the plaintiff brought the lawsuit. If the plaintiff had to give all of the punitive damages to the state, there would be no incentive to seek them in the first place. Yet the judicial system recognizes that punitive damages serve a socially useful purpose, in that they express society's strong disapproval of certain actions that do not, however, merit criminal sanctions. So either the plaintiff gets the punitive damages as a reward for pursuing what is, in effect, a social purpose, or else the state gets involved in every case where punitives might be available, which would be enormously costly.

That being said, I know that there are some jurisdictions where a portion of punitive damages are awarded to the state. And there are, of course, many places in the world where punitives are not available at all.

"If the plaintiff had to give all of the punitive damages to the state, there would be no incentive to seek them in the first place."

I think the plaintiff would bring the same lawsuit in order to be compensated for the loss that he incurred. The court would award him compensatory damages, which would put him in the same economic position that he was in before he incurred the loss.

Well duh!

Now, if all punitive damages go to the state, you're not only making the plaintiff an agent of the state, you are making him pay for the privilage. I've heard better ideas. Like, like let the state file and pay for the lawsuit.