Hacker News Reader

Comment by oneepic | Hacker News Reader

Doesn't $1B seem a bit high? I mean no offense, it just sounds so out of left field, to demand $1B from your government.

View on HN

The article says there are approximately 90 claimants. $11m per victim doesn't sound that outlandish a number. It goes to highlight the enormous scale of the crime that the total amasses to $1b.

Maybe I'm weird, but $11M still sounds high. It's also not about the damages that the actual perpetrator caused, this seems more like a punitive case against the government.

You’re not wrong, it is a punitive case against the government. It’s also about the actual damages that perpetrator caused, but those are difficult to quantify. I’m sure the prosecution is just starting what they consider to be the high side, knowing there are good odds a judge or jury might reduce it from there, if they win.

What is the lifetime median salary for an American?

Hard to pin down a figure but say $2million.

So taxpayers will pay over 5x the normal lifetime income to the victims.

I think there may be an issue with this because I think there is a lot of evil bad stuff that happens and if the government pays for all of it (the trend is to right all injustice), aren’t we risking economic collapse with these massive settlements? If this pays out, there will be more…

>I think there is a lot of evil bad stuff that happens

They aren't suing because evil bad stuff happened. They are suing because (they believe) the government caused evil bad stuff to happen.

Not even "caused" but "allowed"

A semantic distinction at best. There is no real practical difference from the perspective of a victim. Remember, that is all this is at this point. No verdict has been returned, no settlement reached. These are purely claims from victims.

I beg to differ. There is a huge difference between the person raping you and the other people on the train not getting involved, even from the victim's perspective. From a legal perspective, there are very clear distinctions (criminal vs civil, responsibility by party, etc).

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/suspect-arrested-...

From the perspective of a victim, there is also a huge difference between stopping a crime in progress and preventing a crime from ever even being attempted. Being the victim of an attempted crime can still be traumatizing. People likely wouldn't even know if they would have been the victim of a crime that is successfully avoided.

Either way, this discussion doesn't matter at this point. As I already said, this is not a legal decision being handed down. These are claims by victims and the accused haven't even responded yet.

I consider the current path much, much riskier for society, where qualified immunity and SCOTUS precedent essentially shield cops entirely from the consequences of their misbehavior and malfeasance

"The approximately 90 claimants include Biles, Raisman and McKayla Maroney, all Olympic gold medalists,"

You'll note these aren't normal average Americans that were abused. For those that weren't high profile, many probably had the potential to become elite athletes were it not for the abuse. There is also an argument to be made that their endorsement opportunities were limited due to the controversy surrounding the abuse. I'm sure there is a reticence to put an athlete on your cereal box that is embroiled in a sexual abuse scandal, even though they are the victim. It's just not what you want brought to mind when your customers see your marketing material.

Damage calculations are part of due process and should never consider "the poor taxpayers" for any purpose. Most or all plaintiffs are taxpayers, too.

Of course. The interesting part is how the damages are calculated to get to that number.

But there is not justice to victims or society if the government is bankrupted by the judgement.

Money doesn’t erase the harm.

I don't think that judgments risk bankrupting the government, nor do I believe that bankrupting the government risks denying justice to the victims, or by extension, society. Remembering of course, that victims are the part of society that matters when a judgement is issued in their favor.

If society crumbles who protects the victims?

If debt to satisfy settlements, causes the currency to collapse, the settlements to the victims are useless.

Sounds like you are analyzing victim payouts in a vacuum.

The society that would ostensibly crumble under the burden of victim settlements was already lost to government that victimized its members. Remember these are the terms the government set forth for itself, which it broke.

This is the number they are starting at. There is little incentive to start with a lower number. Lawsuits specifically about this crime have already had $1m+ payouts per victim. $11m isn't outlandish given that context.

Maybe you aren't looking at the loss of $11M earning potential in your career. Trauma can end a person for all practical purposes.

Literally killing someone is only valued at $10M. https://www.npr.org/2020/04/23/843310123/how-government-agen...

But the crimes had already happened - is this about pre-crime ?

According to the article nearly $900M has already been paid out over this guy. These numbers are mind-boggling.

"Michigan State University, which was also accused of missing chances over many years to stop Nassar, agreed to pay $500 million to more than 300 women and girls who were assaulted by Nassar. USA Gymnastics and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee made a $380 million settlement."

It blows my mind that places like this even have that kind of money. Or maybe they have some sort of insurance.

Then there's the fact that any individuals responsible (besides the actual perpetrator) have no financial responsibility. The cost gets passed on to future students or other consumers of insured organizations.

"MSU's endowment had a market value of $3.9 billion in June 2021".

Usually the endowment is protected though. They can only withdraw so much at a time because it lives in a trust, right?

Its an interesting thought experiment to imagine if we had a world where, if proven beyond reasonable doubt, that someone knew of something like this taking place, they bore some real responsibility as well.

While I don't know anything about legal nuances to sufficiently say its a good idea (or bad, honestly), I have to say that my armchair take is this would mitigate a lot of bad in our society, as the incentives to allow things go unnoticed or effectively ignored would be gone

There are laws about reporting suspected abuse. But I think those are mostly around minors and primary/secondary schools. It's also probably hard to prove they knew, so they go after them on a failure to supervise in civil trials. The burden of proof is also much lower in civil cases.

I had no idea he assaulted over 300 women. How on earth did he not get arrested sooner?

In 2019, Michigan State University's endowment was $3.93 Billion.

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universit...

Usually the endowment is protected though. They can only withdraw so much at a time because it lives in a trust, right?

It's there to make a statement, I'm sure there are limitations on suits like this.

wouldn't be necessary if merit & citizens rights were enough to get the agency to do the right thing, god knows their exuberant salaries aren't making them do it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com