Abstract
Whether or not one feels sympathy for the defendants against whom punitive damage judgments are often assessed, the Constitution mandates that even the most unpopular defendants receive its protection. When the state becomes definitively involved in the punishment of bad actors, even in what would otherwise be a civil case, defendants deserve the elevated constitutional safeguards of a criminal trial to protect them. As outlined above, the penal purpose of punitive damages combined with the direct financial benefit to states under split-recovery statutes creates constitutional issues. There are, however, ways to retain the benefits of split-recovery statutes without implicating constitutional concerns. I have suggested a few ideas, and I am sure there are many more. Lawmakers and courts should consider implementing such solutions to preserve the benefits of split-recovery statutes while eliminating constitutional problems.
Recommended Citation
Rabe, Bethany
(2008)
"The Constitutionality of Split-Recovery
Punitive Damage Statutes: Good Policy but
Bad Law,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2008:
No.
1, Article 11.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2008/iss1/11