Trusting a Jury

Tort Reform has been a popular topic of late in Texas. The argument is that:

• Doctors are forced out of business by ruinous insurance rates
• Insurance rates are skyrocketing due to ruinous awards in malpractice suites

As is typical in politics, the proponents site specific, apocryphal stories but never mention any well done study of the long term effects to back up their argument.

Setting aside the validity of the argument, the solution proposed is to cap damage awards in civil trials.

Implicit in this solution, but never discussed, is that the proponents don't trust Juries to deliver justice in a Civil trial. However, they do seem to trust these same Juries to decide to put a man to death.

Why the double standard?

Well, it is likely that most people think they will never face a death penalty but can see they might face a Civil trial.

There is also the attention effect: The press love to cover civil trials which produce Huge awards; they tend to not cover death penalty cases except when the crime is heinous. So people often read about dubious large awards in civil trials but only read about the death penalty in cases that seem cut and dried. The effect is more pronounced as the Press give very little attention to the final outcome of civil trials. Thus, most people hear about the initial Huge award but never hear that most of these are overturned on appeal.

Perhaps a more effective solution would be to figure out ways to help Juries do a better job and thus restore trust in a fundamental aspect of our Nation.