Punitive damages

Here's an idea that I've had in the past, that I was thinking about today while reading a news story.

I've got no problem with compensatory damages. I don't think any reasonable person could. And I understand the idea of punitive damages - that the transgressor should be punished for egregious wrongdoings. Since we're talking about cases tried in civil, rather than criminal, court, prison is not a possibility. The way a civil court punishes is monetarily.

Let's say Person A is wronged by B, Inc., but is then made whole by compensatory damages, potentially including pain and suffering. The judge and/or jury further decide that B, Inc. must, beyond indemnifying Person A, be punished for its wrongs. Punitive damages are then awarded... but why should they go to the plaintiff? According to Douglas Laycock in Modern American Remedies, studies have shown that punitive damages are awarded in 2 percent of civil trials? Why should those 2 percent of plaintiffs get a lottery-like payday which is not offered to 98% of others?

The purpose of the civil court system is to indemnify, to make whole, those who have suffered due to another person's or company's violation of the law. Monetary losses are restored. Physical suffering is compensated (there are tables that have been created which show a decided-upon value of, for example, the loss of a finger, a hand, an arm to the elbow, etc.). Pain and suffering is compensated. This is all as it should be. However, as I see it, once the wronged person has been made whole, they should not be made "more whole" by reaping the benefits of someone's decision to punish the defendant.

I don't think we should do away with punitive damages. I think they should become fines. They should be paid to the government. Kind of like if I were speeding and hit your car. I... well, my insurance... would pay to fix your car. But my fine for speeding wouldn't go to you. It's a fine. It goes to the state. The same should happen with punitive damages in civil trials, as I see it.