PERSPECTIVE ON RODNEY KING : The Criminal System Skews Value of a Life : We should limit jury awards, especially when the victim is largely responsible for events leading up to the injury.

Rodney King just proved that crime can pay. Worse, a jury in Los Angeles has decided that injuries he received while committing a crime deserve higher compensation than the life of a police officer dedicated to fighting crime.

Like most Americans, I was deeply troubled by the videotape that showd a number of Los Angeles police officers assaulting King with what appeared to be excessive and potentially deadly force. However, compare King’s $3.8-million jury award to the compensation that is awarded to police officers who have been killed in the line of duty. Los Angeles Police Department Officer Christy Hamilton was killed in March by a sniper in Northridge. The only death benefits that Hamilton’s family received from the City of Los Angeles and the State of California were a percentage of her pension as a monthly benefit, and only then until her spouse remarries.

The federal government provides an additional benefit of $123,530 to officers who are either killed or permanently and totally disabled in the line of duty.

Rodney King was on parole from a robbery conviction. He was driving while severely intoxicated. He tried to evade arrest, and led the police on a high-speed chase while endangering the lives of countless others around him. Whether one agrees that the police applied excessive force in restraining him, King’s injuries do not merit $3.8 million.

It is an injustice that the family of Officer Hamilton will only receive 3% to 10% of the monies that King has been awarded thus far. And there is still a second phase in King’s case--proceedings to determine whether he should be paid punitive damages.

How could 12 reasonable jurors reach the conclusion that injuries to a convicted criminal are of greater value than the life of a police officer? King’s attorneys had originally demanded $57 million from the city of Los Angeles--$1 million for each time he was hit by the police. When forced to cite figures in court for actual damages suffered, King’s attorneys reduced this amount to $15 million in compensatory damages: $199,894.02 for medical costs; $1,652,029.00 for lost past and future potential wages, and $13,148,076.98 for “loss of enjoyment of life” resulting from his minutes-long ordeal.

The $1.65 million for lost wages is perhaps the most intriguing figure. King had earned a total of $44,000 over the previous 10 years. The $13 million for loss of enjoyment of life is similarly questionable. It is interesting to note that King had previously been convicted for assaulting a man with a metal pipe. Perhaps he should have to pay that victim.

Compensatory damage awards are supposed to compensate a victim for a portion of his injuries. Unfortunately, overly sympathetic juries can get caught up in a wave of pity for the plaintiff or a sense of outrage against the actions of the defendant. However, by allowing someone who is injured while resisting arrest to claim more than $13 million in loss of enjoyment of life, our legal system sends out a perverse message to society.

The underlying problem with our justice system is not the Rodney Kings who are merely taking advantage of a financial windfall opportunity. Rather, our laws are being corrupted by the lack of limitations on jury awards, particularly where the victims are in large part responsible for the events leading up to their injury.

To prevent future injustices that turn criminals into multimillionaires at taxpayers’ expense, state legislatures need to enact strict limits on jury awards for victims who are responsible for at least part of their injuries through their own criminal acts. Pain and suffering awards must be put into perspective, and should reflect the value that society places on other individuals, such as the compensation of our police officers. Taxpayers should not have to empty their wallets every time a criminal is injured while resisting arrest.