Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9489896" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Well, you bring up interesting philosophical questions. I'd start by saying that generally, the criminal system has an interest in public deterrence. The civil law system doesn't have that same interest. Torts (most civil law actions) are about compensation, not deterrence. However, law & economics looks at the tort system as a form of deterrence as well- just not public deterrence. Instead, it's viewed as a way of making actions "cost" the correct amount. Also also, there are punitive damages in some instances in civil cases, which are considered both a punitive measure and a means of deterring that type of act. That's why some states require a portion of punitive damages go to the state.So, the general issue is that civil actions are between private parties. So they should be allowed to decide how to resolve it between the parties - in fact, the rules of procedure specifically encourage settlement. As a general rule, the parties can make their settlements private, although we see that in some case, public policy is such that certain types of settlements shouldn't be confidential (Congress passed a law two years ago making non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements unenforceable when it comes to sexual assault and sexual harassment). Anyway, I think that no reasonable person would want to emulate LaNasa's behavior.</blockquote>