No one is question whether it was wrong. No one is questioning whether it is appropriate to view a sexual attack to determine if it’s wrong. The question raised in this thread is whether that crime justified a 55 million dollar award. Some of us lack a active imagination and can’t natter on about things we’re not familiar with, so we ask for cites. This is a message board. The issue is not whether she was harmed, we agree on that, the issue is was it a 55 million dollar harm. How do you take someone’s word for that?
Still sounds to me like you want an excuse to see a video of a nekkid female, and you’re using this to justify violating her privacy AGAIN.
Don’t you get it - that sort of casual viewing by total strangers is EXACTLY WHAT SHE IS OBJECTING TO. She can NEVER stop it because of the nature of the internet.
You watching the video of her is violating her all over again. Why don’t you get that?
I’m asking you a serious question. Does your rationale give you the right to look at other criminally gathered images of nude people taken without their knowledge? A teacher secretly films children in the locker room, the parents sue and the dollar amount is so high that you now have the right to look at the film. Is that how it works?
And I answered this. The question, as presented in this OP, calls into question the 55 million dollar award for THIS case. Was the jury award of 55 million fair and equitable in this case? Your if my aunt had wings she’d be an airplane questions are not related to this point.
Ok, so let’s break it down what is it about THIS case that gives you the “right” to view video of a naked person gathered illegally? Apparently, it’s the $55 million, so if it had been $54 million would you still have the “right?” What dollar amount for an award does it cut off where you no longer have the “right” to view Ms. Andrews naked?
This editorial reflects whats been said by many in this thread. The amount of the judgement against the hotel is much too high. Especially when compared to victims or the families of the victim, that were awarded judgements for more serious crimes.
So we can agree that the sums given to those assaulted by police, or their survivors, are much too low–at least in terms of their effectiveness in deterring the criminal behavior. Conversely, does anyone doubt that this case will make every hotel operator in the country re-evaluate their guest privacy and security practices?
If the only consideration is “behavior modification”, there is never any incentive to apply the breaks on the quantum of compensation. Why not award every victim an even billion? That will ensure no-one ever does anything wrong again.
This is the same sort of thinking, in purely criminal matters, that results in excessively long sentences.
The problem is that the social goals such as “behavior modification” ought, IMO, to be weighed against the (largely invisible) social costs of imposing massive penalties.
So, Morgenstern… if creepy Uncle Jerk makes secret videos of Niece Chastity (age 6) and posts them on the internet, and Niece Chastity is awarded $55 million in damages does that give you the “right” to view a bad video of a naked 6 year old, or is it only adult women who have no right to privacy in your view?
Then you need to talk to the manager of these dumps, since the desk clerk is really screwing up the procedures. I don’t think one has said my room number out loud for ten years at least. And it is not accidental - they are clearly following procedures and are very careful about it.
I have a friend who had a virtual stranger knock on her hotel room one night…he told the clerk he was her husband when in fact she had just met him that night at a bar and the clerk gave him the room number.
A lot of women have had the experience of some creep they just met, or who is following them, or something similar claiming to be her “boyfriend” or “husband” when confronted by authorities.
Including me.
Apparently most men do not experience this. Must be nice.
If the voyeur had been convicted of a crime involving filming an unsuspecting female, and received 3 to 5 year (or so) sentence, I would have said “justice is served” and ignored it.
If the same person had received 5 consecutive life sentences for that same act, and someone posted a thread on this board raising those sentences as an issue, I would have wondered what the fuck was so egregious about this particular crime that 5 consecutive life sentences were necessary. I would google it.
Possibly. But words are subjective. Obviously, in this case, there was considerable differences in the opinions of both sides as to the extent of the damages, not whether the acts were legal or not. If jury verdicts were 100% reliable, remittitur would not exist.
Ok, so what is the figure where you don’t have the right to see Ms. Andrews naked? $15 million? If it was too low, would you once again be able to assert that right? “$1? I’ve got to see that video?”
IIRC the eggshell skull rules says that you pay damages. If your plaintiff accrues greater damages than the average person would you pay the damages that the person who was harmed incurs.
The jury apparently thought she got hurt on the order of $55 million.