Monetary Payment For a Non-Monetary Loss

Because that is the only form of compensation allowed.

What would an alternative form of compensation be?

oralloy-

Thank you.

I think the meaning of compensation (or recompense) has to do with returning the victim to the condition he was in before the wrongful act was committed.

In my example, a rape can not be undone.

However, I think it is absurd to make the woman a millionaire when she is not out any money.

I find it even more bizarre when the payer is not the rapist but his employer, a governmental entity or other party.

I acknowledge to seize all of the rapist's earthly goods would be a fitting punishment. However, I don't see why the victim should receive the money. I think a charity or government agency would be a more just remedy.

I'm not really sure you can sue without showing monetary loss. Maybe she had some relatively small associated medical costs. That should give her standing, which might allow for enormous punitive claims.

Notice I said maybe and might. I had a class in business law 30 years ago, which did cover torts.

People can sue for pain and suffering.

I concur.

Can you suggest a better remedy?

oralloy-

Thank you.

Yes I can.

I would take from the wrongdoer part or all of his property and possibly future income. This would punish him and create a deterrent to dissuade other people from committing the same crime.

I would not tie the number of dollars paid by the wrongdoer to the amount of recompense paid to the victim. I would recompense the victim the number of dollars he/she is out.

What about damages caused by pain and suffering? How would you recompense those?

oralloy-

Thank you.

I'm not sure how I would handle each case. Generally I think monetary awards for non-monetary loss is way out of control.

I think turning such victims into millionaires 0ften at taxpayer expense is unseemly.

There was a case in New York City where 1) a man broke the law, 2) then the police tried to arrest him, 3) then he resisted arrest, 4) then he died as an apparent result of the police using an impermissible choke hold to try to arrest him and also because of his poor health.

His family member(s) received $5.9 million from the taxpayers.

The family was not out $5.9 million. Their suffering I think is dubious.

I think the taxpayer is suffering.

Next week I am going to New York City to see My Fair Lady on Broadway. The Tickets cost more than $200 a piece. I am gaining an experience for me and my daughter, something that I will enjoy. The experience (once I have had it) has zero economic value.

I pay money for television series. I pay money for the novels I read. I pay money for travel.

The idea that you can't exchange money for non-monetary benefits is illogical.

The problem with that case is, the police did nothing wrong. The city should not have settled and paid for nonexistent misconduct.

However, there are cases when police officers do cause harm to innocent people.

If a community does not wish to pay for damages caused by police officers, the solution is for the community to exert better control over their police officers so that these damages do not occur in the first place.

The purpose of that award is mostly punitive. If the government is facing huge penalties they have lots of incentive to correct their behavior. There is no other effective way to penalize the government than to make its stakeholders mad. If you are mad about that verdict, don't be mad at the person who was killed, be mad at the government officials who allowed that to happen and take action to put them out of office.

Was it an award? I thought the city settled.

I doubt they would have lost had they been willing to take it to a jury, given the facts of the case.

I think monetary compensation has value.

Money does improves someone's life, it provides opportunities, makes doing things easier and makes life more pleasant in general. Is a negligent or malevolent act has made a victims life more difficult and less pleasant, money does reverse that. In the specific case you are discussing... the victim is dead and thus can not be compensated directly. But in many cases a direct monetary compensation for pain and suffering makes logical sense.

In a sense the family might well be out that amount or more. The future income which could have been generated must be taken into account.

Family members suffering is also quite possible and very real. They have lost a beloved member of their family. Perhaps he was the father of children and they may now be left somewhat adrift as they navigate through life without this man. No actual monetary amount can be attached to that; however, it's good to have something there for them. In this situation it is also a reminder to the police departments to get their act together.


(if this is about the 2014 murder by cop (and EMS) of Eric Garner, may Pantaleo be the one who is stripped of his worldly possessions...apart from what is necessary for his basic survival and that of his family)


Additionally, if this is related to Eric Garner, recompense is also a reminder of how family can be harmed. His daughter died towards the end of 2017, quite possibly as an indirect resulting effect of the brutality of her father's murder. She was one of those who suffered and there was not anything dubious about it.

That is silly. There was no murder, and Mr. Pantaleo did nothing wrong.

Facts, please.

Pantaleo used a chokehold on Mr.Garner. This is against the rules and regulations of the NYPD.
Look it up!

Of course it is Staten Island, one of the most backwards places I've ever had the misfortune to live in and had the pleasure of leaving

Mr. Pantaleo did no such thing. He used an approved method that the NYPD trains all of their officers to use.

But even if he had used a choke hold, that would not have made him in any way responsible for the death. It would merely have been a violation of procedure.

I am already fully aware of the untrue accusations, and of all the reasons why they are untrue.

The NYPD does not have an approved method of choking. This is why the he case is being examined by the feds, it is why the trial by the department is getting started in NYC.

True. But they do have an approved method of grappling people who are resisting arrest.

What trial are you referring to?