Martin Hoke: “Mr. Chairman, this punitive damages amendment is fairly simple and straightforward. What it does is it restores the…”

“Mr. Chairman, this punitive damages amendment is fairly simple and straightforward. What it does is it restores the original intent of punitive damages awards which is namely to punish wrongdoers, it is not to compensate plaintiffs. Every day in courtrooms across America, plaintiffs are compensated for lost wages, for medical and rehabilitation costs, loss of the use of property, emotional distress, injury to their reputation, humiliation, and loss of companionship or consortium. These are the awards that are intended to make the defendant whole or complete. These are compensatory awards. But in addition to these economic and noneconomic damages, plaintiffs are receiving themselves windfalls that were never meant to play part in making them whole. This windfall comes in the form of punitive damages that by their very definition are intended to be punishment for wrongdoing defendants. This punishment is intended to deter future wrongdoing. The key to a fine's effectiveness is not who receives it but who is forced to pay. That is why I am proposing that 75 percent of punitive damages in excess of $250,000 be paid to the State in which the action is litigated.”