>I'm curious why you'd bring up those corporate crimes and not think that the obvious response would be that corporate crimes obviously need greater liability, Rather than Jones needing less.

Sure, some company poisons the groundwater with hexavalent chromium: let's fine them $2800 quintillion. That makes sense to me. I mean, it makes sense to you, right? I know that it must make sense to you, because I actually do see evidence of stupid shit thinking like this out in the real world all around me.

When you levy fines/awards that could never hoped to be paid in any real-world circumstances, you're not levying fines (or awards) at all, you're trying to fabricate a scenario, as a judge, to stop them from existing or doing what they do. And it isn't without consequence.

Here's an example... a judge sits at a bail hearing, finds out the arrestee is a cannibal murderer that eats babies, the cops found him with a half-eaten baby still screaming in his mouth but the doctors weren't able to save it. Does he deny bail, like a reasonable human being does? No, "Bail's set at $10 million!". You're happy because that monster will stay in jail until the trial. But now every other defendant will have their bail mysteriously drift higher, until you're crying that bail is unjust (it's not) because someone shoplifts and the bail is $50,000. And you just seem profoundly incapable of seeing this causal chain. Bail, for instance, was only ever meant to secure someone's appearance at trial. By definition it needs to be a high enough amount that they'd rather lose out on the money than skip the trial, but low enough that they can scrape together the money at all. Done correctly, there are amounts that carefully (but narrowly) find that overlap. But because apparently no one gets that or can get that, everything's fucked up beyond all sanity.

Awards are like this too. By setting the award too high, these people will never even get a fraction of it (the damages they suffered will never get recompense), and rather than incentivizing Jones' future good behavior, they pushed him into even more noxious and socially maladjusted behavior and have inspired some sort of narcissist-martyr complex beyond even that which he was already making the world suffer for.

That's why I didn't bring it up. Because it's a dumb idea that totally misunderstands everything.

Surely there's a number between $2800 quintillion and whatever low number actually gets awarded that would make sense.

The actual damages awarded here is about $64 million per plaintiff, which is a lot, but not utterly absurd. If we used that amount for your chromium hypothetical, the company would need to have killed about 44 trillion people. This is, I'm reliably informed, more people than there actually are. A reasonable amount for damages in the groundwater case would be whatever it costs to either clean it up or take ownership of the affected land. If it's discovered after it has already hurt people then it needs to include damages for those people.

It doesn't really compare with bail. As you say, the purpose of bail is to ensure appearance at trial. The purpose of tort awards is to compensate for damages, and sometimes to punish. Bail is set based on the defendant: how likely are they to flee, what sort of means do they have? Damages are set based on the consequences of the tort: how much damage was there, does the person deserve additional punishment on top?

If a person has $100, then setting bail above $100 doesn't make any sense. It's equivalent to no bail. Awarding more than $100 in damages makes sense, because they can obtain more money later. Even if they don't, you're meant to award based on damages, not ability to pay. If the damages were $1,000 then the award should be $1,000 regardless of whether the person is a hobo or Jeff Bezos.