Not saying that punitive damages are never unreasonable, or that the system isn't flawed. However, punitive damages are awarded by a jury of 12 neutral people who have listened to all the evidence, usually over a period of many weeks, and made their best decision. That decision is then reviewed by at least one appellate court. I am not sure how to make the system better than that.
To give punitive damages to a charity would encourage juries to error on the side of awarding punitive damages, since the money is going to a good cause, anyway.
Large businesses are usually the ones paying out the large punitive damages. These same large businesses have the resources (i.e. the money to hire lobbiests) to promote their propaganda that large damage awards are bad for society. I'd be wary of any publication or speaker concluding the same unless it is well supported by concrete data. In other words, I think any politician who is campaigning for tort reform is in the back pocket of big business, unless he/she has hard data backing up their tort reform plan.
JMHO
--shinbone
