I'm not being critical of the person bringing the suit. I was being critical of the monetary damages when there was not really any damage to the plaintiff that would have meant loss of income, health or well being.
I'm still think there has to be a better way beyond taking money from one party and going it to another party, for my part I don't know what that might be, but that is just my opinion. Paying money is something we do for goods and services, it just doesnt feel right to me to use it as a form of punishment in the judicial system as well. Again, that's just my opinion. Though I understand the need for fines in regards to breaking some laws, monetary rewards for legal proceedings just don't seem right to me unless there was actual need for them due to loss of money or physical injury.
As for the comment about them not being able to reach the school I wil admit to honestly missing or reading over that part and I feel like an ass for doing so since it pretty much render much of my line of thinking on the article irrelivant.
Sallen said:
In what way was I flip flopping? My only ever main stated issue was with the monetary reward, and that's not specific to this case. I fully agree that if the ones in charge of determining the schools valedictorian are guilty of discrimination, and ther is a history of that type of behavior , then yes people should be punished. I would just like that punishment to come in a form that forces people to actually help address the underlying cause of the issue, rather than just the symptom of the issue.
But you're being critical of the person bringing suit when it's the system that you have a problem with. Monetary damages, AFAIK IANAL BBQ, are the preferred method by judiciary in our country to settle civil suits. Ideally, punitive damages exist to create a situation where organizations, in order to avoid future monetary losses, reform their practices. This may involve changes in policy, personnel, or the organizational culture. What you seem to want is for the courts to skip that interim step and initiate those changes themselves.
But again, i have to ask you, even if it were within the judge's power, do you think a judiciary is in the best position to decide how to "fix" a school system with an underlying racial/socioeconomic prejudice? Wouldn't you think that, say, a superintendent and principles and an elected schoolboard with the fear of future lawsuits (especially ones that can now cite a history of wanton disregard for civil rights) could better make the right decisions to reform the culture of the school district?
Sallen said:
I'm not being critical of the person bringing the suit. I was being critical of the monetary damages when there was not really any damage to the plaintiff that would have meant loss of income, health or well being.
What if it affected the grants or scholarships she was able to apply for/ win?
Sallen said:
I'm not being critical of the person bringing the suit. I was being critical of the monetary damages when there was not really any damage to the plaintiff that would have meant loss of income, health or well being.
What if it affected the grants or scholarships she was able to apply for/ win?
Then yes, I would say that in such cases, a monetary reward would be logical.
look. Ill just go on record in saying that I have either misread or misinterpreted what other people have said, what this article has said and in general done a piss poor job of getting my point accross and being a bit of a stubborn ass in the process.
Otoki said:
When it comes to these sorts of issues, you should keep your "how things are" argument separate from your "how things should be" arguments. It doesn't make sense to get pissed about the monetary part of the lawsuit even if it's not necessary to get it heard in a specific court because that's how shit has gotten done in the past. You may not like it, but if the goal is to change the way things are done, hitting them in the wallet is a very effective way to do so.
Ma'am, there is no "Them" who's wallet is being hit. There is a student body who will have to do without whaever resources that monetary award would have afforded them. Money that ultimately originated from that same student body's parents or guardians.
IF this is a case of descrimination, it is a condition that exists in the hearts & minds of the offenders who, no matter what court rulings are haded down, won't change their minds based on what some judge says... and more so, won't have to cough up any of that money themselves.
You're completely missing the point and your interpretation of how legal penalties exert pressure on an offending party is woefully inadequate.
I'll grant you that it may not change the minds of the offenders, but it could case them to lose their jobs. If they've violated the rights of the student, they won't likely repeat the same offense in the future, no matter how they feel about the decision.
In any case, this isn't about how they think or feel, this is about justice, if you believe your rights have been violated, you ought to seek redress so that it doesn't happen again. As far as the financial recompense being sought, as Subrosa pointed out, it could be used as leverage to force settlement, otherwise it would be used to help cover the cost of legal counsel if the case is brought to court.
Sallen said:
I'm not being critical of the person bringing the suit. I was being critical of the monetary damages when there was not really any damage to the plaintiff that would have meant loss of income, health or well being.
I'm still think there has to be a better way beyond taking money from one party and going it to another party, for my part I don't know what that might be, but that is just my opinion. Paying money is something we do for goods and services, it just doesnt feel right to me to use it as a form of punishment in the judicial system as well. Again, that's just my opinion. Though I understand the need for fines in regards to breaking some laws, monetary rewards for legal proceedings just don't seem right to me unless there was actual need for them due to loss of money or physical injury.
As for the comment about them not being able to reach the school I wil admit to honestly missing or reading over that part and I feel like an ass for doing so since it pretty much render much of my line of thinking on the article irrelivant.
In some ways money has to be used as a punishment. This is modern day America, so it's not like the courts can take them out back and give them a whipping or take their livestock away. Money is used as a punishment because people typically don't want to part with large sums of it and as it's been said multiple times, $75k is hardly a large sum for a lawsuit.
Sal_
USA
October 2009
JUL 31, 2011 07:38 AM