>Why is punitive damages paid by government agencies a good thing? It is invariably a transfer of public tax monies to private pockets. Very much different from punitive damages paid by private parties, which usually have a re-distributive aspect.
The point, presumably, is to deter those who would make venous calculations about whether it is cheaper to pay compensation for the suffering caused by the agencies unlawful decisions than it would be to make less damaging decisions.
But I see no difference between decisions made by public agencies and those made by private companies. If a public agency, presumably with the consent of the public, deliberately makes decisions which it and its acquiescing public knows will cause suffering, then the public might well deserve to be financially penalised.
To the extent that the population (in a democratic society) acts in bad faith and permits bad decisions to be made by its representatives, which cause suffering, surely the public must be held accountable for their behaviour? There is no difference in principle between the unlawful decisions of a private company, with the consent of shareholders who stand to gain from the decision, and similar behaviour by public agencies.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas