Lady Justice depicts justice as equipped with three symbols: a sword symbolizing the court's coercive power; a human scale weighing competing claims in each hand; and a blindfold indicating impartiality.^[1]

Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity. It is also the act of being just and/or fair.^{[2][not in citation given]}

Concept of justice[link]

According to most contemporary theories of justice, justice is overwhelmingly important: John Rawls claims that "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought."^[3] Justice can be thought of as distinct from and more fundamental than benevolence, charity, mercy, generosity, or compassion. Justice has traditionally been associated with concepts of fate, reincarnation or Divine Providence, i.e. with a life in accordance with the cosmic plan. The association of justice with fairness has thus been historically and culturally rare and is perhaps chiefly a modern innovation [in western societies].^[4]

Studies at UCLA in 2008 have indicated that reactions to fairness are "wired" into the brain and that, "Fairness is activating the same part of the brain that responds to food in rats... This is consistent with the notion that being treated fairly satisfies a basic need".^[5] Research conducted in 2003 at Emory University, Georgia, USA, involving Capuchin Monkeys demonstrated that other cooperative animals also possess such a sense and that "inequity aversion may not be uniquely human"^[6] indicating that ideas of fairness and justice may be instinctual in nature.

Variations of justice[link]

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, where punishment is forward-looking. Justified by the ability to achieve future social benefits resulting in crime reduction, the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.

Retributive justice regulates proportionate response to crime proven by lawful evidence, so that punishment is justly imposed and considered as morally correct and fully deserved. The law of retaliation (lex talionis) is a military theory of retributive justice, which says that reciprocity should be equal to the wrong suffered; "life for life, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."^[7]

Restorative justice is concerned not so much with retribution and punishment as with (a) making the victim whole and (b) reintegrating the offender into society. This approach frequently brings an offender and a victim together, so that the offender can better understand the effect his/her offense had on the victim.

Distributive justice is directed at the proper allocation of things — wealth, power, reward, respect — among different people.

Understandings of justice[link]

Justice by Luca Giordano

Understandings of justice differ in every culture, as cultures are usually dependent upon a shared history, mythology and/or religion. Each culture's ethics create values which influence the notion of justice. Although there can be found some justice principles that are one and the same in all or most of the cultures, these are insufficient to create a unitary justice apprehension.

Justice as harmony[link]

In his dialogue Republic, Plato uses Socrates to argue for justice that covers both the just person and the just City State. Justice is a proper, harmonious relationship between the warring parts of the person or city. Hence Plato's definition of justice is that justice is the having and doing of what is one's own. A just man is a man in just the right place, doing his best and giving the precise equivalent of what he has received. This applies both at the individual level and at the universal level. A person's soul has three parts – reason, spirit and desire. Similarly, a city has three parts – Socrates uses the parable of the chariot to illustrate his point: a chariot works as a whole because the two horses’ power is directed by the charioteer. Lovers of wisdom – philosophers, in one sense of the term – should rule because only they understand what is good. If one is ill, one goes to a doctor rather than a psychologist, because the doctor is expert in the subject of health. Similarly, one should trust one's city to an expert in the subject of the good, not to a mere politician who tries to gain power by giving people what they want, rather than what's good for them. Socrates uses the parable of the ship to illustrate this point: the unjust city is like a ship in open ocean, crewed by a powerful but drunken captain (the common people), a group of untrustworthy advisors who try to manipulate the captain into giving them power over the ship's course (the politicians), and a navigator (the philosopher) who is the only one who knows how to get the ship to port. For Socrates, the only way the ship will reach its destination – the good – is if the navigator takes charge.^[8]

Justice as divine command[link]

Justice as a divine law is commanding, and indeed the whole of morality, is the authoritative command. Killing is wrong and therefore must be punished and if not punished what should be done? A famous paradox called the Euthyphro dilemma essentially asks: is something right because God commands it, or does God command it because it's right? If the former, then justice is arbitrary; if the latter, then morality exists on a higher order than God, who becomes little more than a passer-on of moral knowledge. The dilemma is in fact false: goodness is the very nature of God and is necessarily expressed in His commands. Another response is that the laws and moral principles are objective and self evident in nature. God embodies these laws and is therefore neither higher nor lower than the law. He sets an example for the good people among men to follow His way and also become an embodiment of the highest principles and morals.

Justice as natural law[link]

For advocates of the theory that justice is part of natural law (e.g., John Locke), it involves the system of consequences that naturally derives from any action or choice. In this, it is similar to the laws of physics: in the same way as the Third of Newton's laws of Motion requires that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction, justice requires according individuals or groups what they actually deserve, merit, or are entitled to. Justice, on this account, is a universal and absolute concept: laws, principles, religions, etc., are merely attempts to codify that concept, sometimes with results that entirely contradict the true nature of justice.

Justice as human creation[link]

In contrast to the understandings canvassed so far, justice may be understood as a human creation, rather than a discovery of harmony, divine command, or natural law. This claim can be understood in a number of ways, with the fundamental division being between those who argue that justice is the creation of some humans, and those who argue that it is the creation of all humans.

Justice as trickery[link]

In Republic by Plato, the character Thrasymachus argues that justice is the interest of the strong—merely a name for what the powerful or cunning ruler has imposed on the people.

Justice as mutual agreement[link]

According to thinkers in the social contract tradition, justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone concerned; or, in many versions, from what they would agree to under hypothetical conditions including equality and absence of bias. This account is considered further below, under ‘Justice as fairness’.

Justice as a subordinate value[link]

According to utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill, justice is not as fundamental as we often think. Rather, it is derived from the more basic standard of rightness, consequentialism: what is right is what has the best consequences (usually measured by the total or average welfare caused). So, the proper principles of justice are those that tend to have the best consequences. These rules may turn out to be familiar ones such as keeping contracts; but equally, they may not, depending on the facts about real consequences. Either way, what is important is those consequences, and justice is important, if at all, only as derived from that fundamental standard. Mill tries to explain our mistaken belief that justice is overwhelmingly important by arguing that it derives from two natural human tendencies: our desire to retaliate against those who hurt us, and our ability to put ourselves imaginatively in another's place. So, when we see someone harmed, we project ourselves into her situation and feel a desire to retaliate on her behalf. If this process is the source of our feelings about justice, that ought to undermine our confidence in them.^[9]

Theories of distributive justice[link]

Allegory or The Triumph of Justice by Hans von Aachen

Theories of distributive justice need to answer three questions:

1. What goods are to be distributed? Is it to be wealth, power, respect, some combination of these things?
2. Between what entities are they to be distributed? Humans (dead, living, future), sentient beings, the members of a single society, nations?
3. What is the proper distribution? Equal, meritocratic, according to social status, according to need, based on property rights and non-aggression?

Distributive justice theorists generally do not answer questions of who has the right to enforce a particular favored distribution. On the other hand, property rights theorists argue that there is no "favored distribution." Rather, distribution should be based simply on whatever distribution results from non-coerced interactions or transactions (that is, transactions not based upon force or fraud).

This section describes some widely held theories of distributive justice, and their attempts to answer these questions.

Egalitarianism[link]

According to the egalitarian, justice can only exist within the coordinates of equality. This basic view can be elaborated in many different ways, according to what goods are to be distributed—wealth, respect, opportunity—and what they are to be distributed equally between—individuals, families, nations, races, species. Commonly held egalitarian positions include demands for equality of opportunity and for equality of outcome. It affirms that freedom and justice without equality are hollow and that equality itself is the highest justice.

At a cultural level, egalitarian theories have developed in sophistication and acceptance during the past two hundred years. Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies are socialism, communism, anarchism, left-libertarianism, and progressivism, all of which propound economic, political, and legal egalitarianism, respectively. Several egalitarian ideas enjoy wide support among intellectuals and in the general populations of many countries. Whether any of these ideas have been significantly implemented in practice, however, remains a controversial question. One argument is that liberalism provides democracy with the experience of civic reformism. Without it, democracy loses any tie─argumentative or practical─to a coherent design of public policy endeavoring to provide the resources for the realization of democratic citizenship.

Giving people what they deserve[link]

In one sense, all theories of distributive justice claim that everyone should get what they deserve. Theories disagree on the basis for deserving. The main distinction is between theories that argue the basis of just deserts is held equally by everyone, and therefore derive egalitarian accounts of distributive justice—and theories that argue the basis of just deserts is unequally distributed on the basis of, for instance, hard work, and therefore derive accounts of distributive justice by which some should have more than others. This section deals with some popular theories of the second type.

According to meritocratic theories, goods, especially wealth and social status, should be distributed to match individual merit, which is usually understood as some combination of talent and hard work. According to needs-based theories, goods, especially such basic goods as food, shelter and medical care, should be distributed to meet individuals' basic needs for them. Marxism can be regarded as a needs-based theory on some readings of Marx's slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".^[10] According to contribution-based theories, goods should be distributed to match an individual's contribution to the overall social good.

Fairness[link]

J. L. Urban, statue of Lady Justice at court building in Olomouc, Czech Republic

In his A Theory of Justice, John Rawls used a social contract argument to show that justice, and especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness: an impartial distribution of goods. Rawls asks us to imagine ourselves behind a veil of ignorance that denies us all knowledge of our personalities, social statuses, moral characters, wealth, talents and life plans, and then asks what theory of justice we would choose to govern our society when the veil is lifted, if we wanted to do the best that we could for ourselves. We don’t know who in particular we are, and therefore can’t bias the decision in our own favour. So, the decision-in-ignorance models fairness, because it excludes selfish bias. Rawls argues that each of us would reject the utilitarian theory of justice that we should maximize welfare (see below) because of the risk that we might turn out to be someone whose own good is sacrificed for greater benefits for others. Instead, we would endorse Rawls's two principles of justice:

• Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
• Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both
  • to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and
  • attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.^[11]

This imagined choice justifies these principles as the principles of justice for us, because we would agree to them in a fair decision procedure. Rawls's theory distinguishes two kinds of goods – (1) liberties and (2) social and economic goods, i.e. wealth, income and power – and applies different distributions to them – equality between citizens for (1), equality unless inequality improves the position of the worst off for (2).

Property rights (non-coercion); having the right history[link]

Robert Nozick's influential critique of Rawls argues that distributive justice is not a matter of the whole distribution matching an ideal pattern, but of each individual entitlement having the right kind of history. It is just that a person has some good (especially, some property right) if and only if they came to have it by a history made up entirely of events of two kinds:

1. Just acquisition, especially by working on unowned things; and

2. Just transfer, that is free gift, sale or other agreement, but not theft (i.e. by force or fraud).

If the chain of events leading up to the person having something meets this criterion, they are entitled to it: that they possess it is just, and what anyone else does or doesn't have or need is irrelevant.

On the basis of this theory of distributive justice, Nozick argues that all attempts to redistribute goods according to an ideal pattern, without the consent of their owners, are theft. In particular, redistributive taxation is theft.

Some property rights theorists also take a consequentialist view of distributive justice and argue that property rights based justice also has the effect of maximizing the overall wealth of an economic system. They explain that voluntary (non-coerced) transactions always have a property called pareto efficiency. A pareto efficient transaction is one where at least one party ends up better off and neither party ends up worse off. The result is that the world is better off in an absolute sense and no one is worse off. Such consequentialist property rights theorists argue that respecting property rights maximizes the number of pareto efficient transactions in the world and minimized the number of non-pareto efficient transactions in the world (i.e. transactions where someone is made worse off). The result is that the world will have generated the greatest total benefit from the limited, scarce resources available in the world. Further, this will have been accomplished without taking anything away from anyone by coercion.

Welfare-maximization[link]

According to the utilitarian, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals. This may require sacrifice of some for the good of others, so long as everyone's good is taken impartially into account. Utilitarianism, in general, argues that the standard of justification for actions, institutions, or the whole world, is impartial welfare consequentialism, and only indirectly, if at all, to do with rights, property, need, or any other non-utilitarian criterion. These other criteria might be indirectly important, to the extent that human welfare involves them. But even then, such demands as human rights would only be elements in the calculation of overall welfare, not uncrossable barriers to action.

Theories of sentencing[link]

In criminal law, a sentence forms the final explicit act of a judge-ruled process, and also the symbolic principal act connected to his function. The sentence can generally involve a decree of imprisonment, a fine and/or other punishments against a defendant convicted of a crime. Laws may specify the range of penalties that can be imposed for various offenses, and sentencing guidelines sometimes regulate what punishment within those ranges can be imposed given a certain set of offense and offender characteristics. The most common purposes of sentencing in legal theory are:

In civil cases the decision is usually known as a verdict, or judgment, rather than a sentence. Civil cases are settled primarily by means of monetary compensation for harm done ("damages") and orders intended to prevent future harm (for example injunctions). Under some legal systems an award of damages involves some scope for retribution, denunciation and deterrence, by means of additional categories of damages beyond simple compensation, covering a punitive effect, social disapprobation, and potentially, deterrence, and occasionally disgorgement (forfeit of any gain, even if no loss was caused to the other party).

Theories of retributive justice[link]

Walter Seymour Allward's Justicia (Justice), outside Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Theories of retributive justice are concerned with punishment for wrongdoing, and need to answer three questions:

1. why punish?
2. who should be punished?
3. what punishment should they receive?

This section considers the two major accounts of retributive justice, and their answers to these questions. Utilitarian theories look forward to the future consequences of punishment, while retributive theories look back to particular acts of wrongdoing, and attempt to balance them with deserved punishment.

Utilitarianism[link]

According to the utilitarian, as already noted, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals. Punishment is bad treatment of someone, and therefore can't be good in itself, for the utilitarian. But punishment might be a necessary sacrifice that maximizes the overall good in the long term, in one or more of three ways:

1. Deterrence. The credible threat of punishment might lead people to make different choices; well-designed threats might lead people to make choices that maximize welfare.
2. Rehabilitation. Punishment might make bad people into better ones. For the utilitarian, all that 'bad person' can mean is 'person who's likely to cause bad things (like suffering)'. So, utilitarianism could recommend punishment that changes someone such that they are less likely to cause bad things.
3. Security/Incapacitation. Perhaps there are people who are irredeemable causers of bad things. If so, imprisoning them might maximize welfare by limiting their opportunities to cause harm and therefore the benefit lies within protecting society.

So, the reason for punishment is the maximization of welfare, and punishment should be of whomever, and of whatever form and severity, are needed to meet that goal. Worryingly, this may sometimes justify punishing the innocent, or inflicting disproportionately severe punishments, when that will have the best consequences overall (perhaps executing a few suspected shoplifters live on television would be an effective deterrent to shoplifting, for instance). It also suggests that punishment might turn out never to be right, depending on the facts about what actual consequences it has.^[12]

Retributivism[link]

The retributivist will think the utilitarian's argument disastrously mistaken. If someone does something wrong, we must respond to it, and to him or her, as an individual, not as a part of a calculation of overall welfare. To do otherwise is to disrespect him or her as an individual human being. If the crime had victims, it is to disrespect them, too. Wrongdoing must be balanced or made good in some way, and so the criminal deserves to be punished. Retributivism emphasizes retribution – payback – rather than maximization of welfare. Like the theory of distributive justice as giving everyone what they deserve (see above), it links justice with desert. It says that all guilty people, and only guilty people, deserve appropriate punishment. This matches some strong intuitions about just punishment: that it should be proportional to the crime, and that it should be of only and all of the guilty. However, it is sometimes argued that retributivism is merely revenge in disguise.^[13] However, there are differences between retribution and revenge: the former is impartial and has a scale of appropriateness, whereas the latter is personal and potentially unlimited in scale.

Restorative justice[link]

Restorative justice (also sometimes called "reparative justice") is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of victims and offenders, instead of satisfying abstract legal principles or punishing the offender. Victims take an active role in the process, while offenders are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions, "to repair the harm they've done—by apologizing, returning stolen money, or community service". It is based on a theory of justice that considers crime and wrongdoing to be an offense against an individual or community rather than the state. Restorative justice that fosters dialogue between victim and offender shows the highest rates of victim satisfaction and offender accountability.

Mixed theories[link]

Some modern philosophers have argued that Utilitarian and Retributive theories are not mutually exclusive. For example, Andrew Von Hirsch, in his 1976 book Doing Justice, suggested that we have a moral obligation to punish greater crimes more than lesser ones. However, so long as we adhere to that constraint then utilitarian ideals would play a significant secondary role.

Evolutionary perspectives[link]

Evolutionary ethics and an argued evolution of morality suggest evolutionary bases for the concept of justice. Biosocial criminology research argues that human perceptions of what is appropriate criminal justice are based on how to respond to crimes in the ancestral small-group environment and that these responses may not always be appropriate for today's societies.

Institutions[link]

The Justices of the United States Supreme Court with President George W. Bush, October 2005

In a world where people are interconnected but they disagree, institutions are required to instantiate ideals of justice. These institutions may be justified by their approximate instantiation of justice, or they may be deeply unjust when compared with ideal standards — consider the institution of slavery. Justice is an ideal the world fails to live up to, sometimes despite good intentions, sometimes disastrously. The question of institutive justice raises issues of legitimacy, procedure, codification and interpretation, which are considered by legal theorists and by philosophers of law.

Another definition of justice is an independent investigation of truth. In a court room, lawyers, the judge and the jury are supposed to be independently investigating the truth of an alleged crime. In physics, a group of physicists examine data and theoretical concepts to consult on what might be the truth or reality of a phenomenon.

See also[link]

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Anthony Duff & David Garland eds, A Reader on Punishment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)
• Barzilai Gad, Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003)
• Brian Barry, Theories of Justice (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989)
• C. L. Ten, Crime, Guilt, and Punishment: A philosophical introduction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987)
• Colin Farrelly, An Introduction to Contemporary Political Theory (London: Sage, 2004)
• David Gauthier, Morals By Agreement (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986)
• James Konow (2003) "Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories", Journal of Economic Literature, 41(4), p. 1188-1239
• David Schmidtz, Elements of Justice (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006)
• Harry Brighouse, Justice (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004)
• John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)
• John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism in On Liberty and Other Essays ed. John Gray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991)
• Nicola Lacey, State Punishment (London: Routledge, 1988)
• Peter Singer ed., A Companion to Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), Part IV
• Plato, Republic trans. Robin Waterfield (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)
• Robert E. Goodin & Philip Pettit eds, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An anthology (2nd edition, Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2006), Part III
• Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974)
• Serge Guinchard, La justice et ses institutions (Judicial institutions), Dalloz editor, 10 edition, 2009
• Ted Honderich, Punishment: The supposed justifications (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1969)
• Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An introduction (2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)

External links[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Justice

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries:
  • Distributive justice, by Julian Lamont
  • Justice as a virtue, by Michael Slote
  • Punishment, by Hugo Adam Bedau
• Justice for the World
• United Nations Rule of Law: Informal Justice, on the relationship between informal/community justice, the rule of law and the United Nations
• Video:Balkan Justice YouTube

• A series of videos on the subject of justice:
  • Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? by Harvard University's Michael Sandel. This is a wonderful series on this subject and from this site you are referred to all 12 episodes as well as to reading materials and comments from participants.

Rick Scott
45th Governor of Florida
Incumbent
Assumed office January 4, 2011
Lieutenant	Jennifer Carroll
Preceded by	Charlie Crist
Personal details
Born	(1952-12-01) December 1, 1952 (age 59) Bloomington, Illinois, U.S.
Political party	Republican
Spouse(s)	Ann Scott (née Frances Annette Holland)
Children	2
Alma mater	University of Missouri, Kansas City Southern Methodist University
Profession	Lawyer; business executive
Religion	Evangelical Christian
Military service
Allegiance	United States
Service/branch	United States Navy
Years of service	1971–1974[1]
Rank	Petty officer, third class[2]
Unit	USS Glover

Richard Lynn "Rick" Scott (born December 1, 1952) is a businessman and the 45th and current Governor of the U.S. state of Florida. He served in the U.S. Navy and then went into business. He earned a business degree and law degree and joined a Dallas firm where he became partner. His net worth was almost $219 million USD in 2010, but by 2011 was estimated at $103 million.^[3] He spent an estimated $75 million of his own money on his successful 2010 run for Governor of Florida.

In 1987, at age 34, he co-founded Columbia Hospital Corporation with two business partners; this merged with Hospital Corporation of America in 1989 to form Columbia/HCA and eventually became the largest private for-profit health care company in the U.S. He resigned as Chief Executive of Columbia/HCA in 1997 amid a controversy over the company's business and Medicare billing practices; the company ultimately admitted to fourteen felonies and agreed to pay the federal government over $600 million; Scott was not implicated.^{[4][5][6][7][8]} Scott later became a venture capitalist.

Scott announced his intention to run for Governor of Florida in 2010. He defeated Bill McCollum in the Republican primary election and defeated Democrat Alex Sink in a close race in the 2010 Florida gubernatorial election.^[9]

Early life and education[link]

Rick Scott was born in Bloomington, Illinois, the second of five children born to financially struggling parents. He was raised in Kansas City, Missouri, where his father, Orba Scott, was a truck driver, and his mother, Esther, worked as a clerk at J.C. Penney, among other jobs.^[10] Scott graduated from high school in 1970, and then attended one year of community college after which he enlisted in the United States Navy. He was in the Navy for 29 months^[11] and served on the USS Glover as a radar technician. He attended college on the GI Bill, later graduating from the University of Missouri–Kansas City with a bachelor's degree in business administration and earned a law degree by working his way through Southern Methodist University.^[12]

In 1972, he married his high school sweetheart, Frances Annette "Ann" Holland; they have two daughters.^[10] They live in Naples and are founding members of Naples Community Church.^[13]

Early business career[link]

Scott made his first foray into business while working his way through college and law school, initially buying and reviving two Kansas City donut shops. After graduating from law school, Scott practiced law in Dallas, Texas. He was a partner at Johnson & Swanson, which was the largest law firm in Dallas at that time. A major client was Tom Hicks of HM Capital Partners.^{[citation needed]}

Scott history at Columbia Hospital Corporation[link]

In April 1987, Scott made his first attempt to buy the Hospital Corporation of America (HCA). While still a partner at Johnson & Swanson, Scott formed the HCA Acquisition Company with two former executives of Republic Health Corporation, Charles Miller and Richard Ragsdale.^[14] With financing from Citicorp conditional on acquisition of HCA,^[15] the proposed holding company offered $3.85 billion for 80 million shares at $47 each, intending to assume an additional $1.2 billion in debt, for a total $5 billion deal.^[16] However, HCA declined the offer, and the bid was withdrawn.^[17]

In 1988, Scott and Richard Rainwater, a financier from Fort Worth, each put up $125,000 in working capital in their new company, Columbia Hospital Corporation,^[18] and borrowed the remaining money needed to purchase two struggling hospitals in El Paso for $60 million.^[19] Then they acquired a neighboring hospital and shut it down. Within a year, the remaining two were doing much better.^[11] By the end of 1989, Columbia Hospital Corporation owned four hospitals with a total of 833 beds.^[19]

In 1992, Columbia made a stock purchase of Basic American Medical, which owned eight hospitals, primarily in southwestern Florida. In September 1993, Columbia did another stock purchase, worth $3.4 billion, of Galen Healthcare, which had been spun off by Humana Inc. several months earlier.^[20] At the time, Galen had approximately 90 hospitals. After the purchase, Galen stockholders had 82 percent of the stock in the combined company, with Scott still running the company.^[19]

In 1994, Columbia purchased Scott's former acquisition target, HCA, which had approximately 100 hospitals. In 1995, Columbia purchased Healthtrust, which had approximately 80 hospitals, primarily in rural communities. By 1997, Columbia/HCA had become the world's largest health care provider with more than 340 hospitals, 130 surgery centers, and 550 home health locations in 38 states and two foreign countries. With annual revenues in excess of $23 billion, the company employed more than 285,000 people, making it the seventh largest U.S. employer and the twelfth largest employer worldwide. Based on market capitalization, Columbia ranked in the top 50 companies in America and top 100 worldwide. That same year, the company was recognized by Business Week magazine as one of the 50 Best Performing Companies of the S&P 500.^{[citation needed]}

Columbia/HCA fraud case details[link]

On March 19, 1997, investigators from the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services served search warrants at Columbia/HCA facilities in El Paso and on dozens of doctors with suspected ties to the company.^[21] The Columbia/HCA board of directors pressured Scott to resign as Chairman and CEO following the inquiry.^[22] He was paid $9.88 million in a settlement. He also left owning 10 million shares of stock worth over $350 million.^[23][24][25] In 1999, Columbia/HCA changed its name back to HCA, Inc.

In settlements reached in 2000 and 2002, Columbia/HCA pled guilty to 14 felonies and agreed to a $600+ million fine in the largest fraud settlement in US history. Columbia/HCA admitted systematically overcharging the government by claiming marketing costs as reimbursable, by striking illegal deals with home care agencies, and by filing false data about use of hospital space. They also admitted fraudulently billing Medicare and other health programs by inflating the seriousness of diagnoses and to giving doctors partnerships in company hospitals as a kickback for the doctors referring patients to HCA. They filed false cost reports, fraudulently billing Medicare for home health care workers, and paid kickbacks in the sale of home health agencies and to doctors to refer patients. In addition, they gave doctors "loans" never intending to be repaid, free rent, free office furniture, and free drugs from hospital pharmacies.^{[4][5][6][7][8]}

In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the U.S. government $631 million, plus interest, and pay $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims.^[26] In all, civil law suits cost HCA more than $2 billion to settle, by far the largest fraud settlement in US history.^[27]

Venture capitalist[link]

After his departure from Columbia/HCA in 1997, Scott launched Richard L. Scott Investments, based in Naples, Florida (originally in Stamford, Connecticut^[28]), which has stakes in health care, manufacturing and technology companies. Between 1998 and 2001, Scott purchased 50% of CyberGuard Corporation for approximately $10 million. Among his investors was Metro Nashville finance director David Manning.^[28] In 2006, CyberGuard was sold to Secure Computing for over $300 million. In February 2005, Scott purchased Continental Structural Plastics, Inc. (CSP) in Detroit, Michigan. In July 2006, CSP purchased Budd Plastics from ThyssenKrupp, making Continental Structural Plastics the largest industrial composites molder in North America. In 2005-06, Scott provided the initial round of funding of $3 million to Alijor.com, which offered hospitals, physicians, and other health care providers the opportunity to post information about their prices, hours, locations, insurance accepted, and personal backgrounds online.^[29] The company was founded with his daughter Allison.^[28] In 2008, Alijor was sold to HealthGrades.

In May 2008, Scott purchased Drives, one of the world's leading independent designers and manufacturers of heavy-duty drive chain-based products and assemblies for industrial and agricultural applications and precision-engineered augers for agricultural, material handling, construction and related applications.^{[citation needed]}

Scott reportedly has an interest in a chain of family fun centers/bowling alleys, S&S Family Entertainment, in Kentucky and Tennessee led by Larry Schmittou, one of baseball's legendary minor league owners.^[30]

America's Health Network (AHN)[link]

In July 1997, Columbia/HCA Healthcare purchased controlling interest in America's Health Network (AHN), the first 24-hour health care cable channel. They pulled out of the deal on the day of the closing because Scott and Vanderwater were terminated, which caused the immediate layoffs of more than 250 people in Orlando. Later that same year, Scott became majority owner of AHN.^[31]

In 1998, Scott and former Columbia/HCA Healthcare President David Vandewater were the leaders in a group of investors that gave AHN a major infusion of cash so that the company could continue to operate. By early 1999, the network was available in 9.5 million American homes.^[32]

In mid-1999 AHN merged with Fit TV, a subsidiary of Fox; the combination was renamed The Health Network.^[33] Later that year, in a deal between News Corp., the owner of Fox Network, and WebMD, the latter received half-ownership of The Health Network. WebMD planned to relaunch The Health Network as WebMD Television in the fall of 2000, with new programming, but that company announced cutbacks and restructuring in September 2000, and in January 2001, Fox regained 100% ownership.^[34] In September 2001, Fox Cable Networks Group sold The Health Network to its main rival, the Discovery Health Channel, for $155 million in cash plus a 10 percent equity stake in Discovery Health.^[35]

Solantic[link]

Solantic, based in Jacksonville, Florida, was co-founded in 2001 by Rick Scott and Karen Bowling, a former television anchor whom Scott met after Columbia bought what is now Memorial Hospital (in Jacksonville, Florida) in 1995.^[10] Solantic opened its first urgent care center in 2002. It provides urgent care services, immunizations, physicals, drug screening, and care for injured workers. The corporation attracts patients who do not have insurance, cannot get appointments with their primary care physicians, or do not have primary care physicians. Solantic is an alternative to the emergency room care that these types of patients often seek, or for not seeing a doctor at all.

In 2006, Scott said that his plans for Solantic were to establish a national brand of medical clinics.^[10] In August 2007, the company received a $40 million investment from a private equity firm and said that it expected to open 35 clinics by the end of 2009, with annual revenues of $100 million once all these clinics were open, compared to $20 million at the time.^[36] As of March 2009, Solantic had 24 centers, all located in Florida.^[37]

Solantic was the target of an employment discrimination suit, which claimed that there had been a policy to not hire elderly or obese applicants, preferring 'mainstream' candidates. It was settled for an undisclosed sum on May 23, 2007. Scott responded to Salon regarding the claims of discrimination pointing out that "currently 53 percent of Solantic’s employees are white, 20 percent black and 17 percent Hispanic." ^[38]

Pharmaca[link]

In 2003, Scott invested $5.5 million in Pharmaca Integrative Pharmacies,^[39] which operates drugstores/pharmacies that offer vitamins, herbal medicine, skin products, homeopathic medicines, and prescriptions. Other investors in Pharmaca include Tom Stemberg, founder and former CEO of Staples, and Arthur Blank, co-founder of Home Depot.

Other work[link]

In the 1990s, Scott was a partner of George W. Bush as co-owner of the Texas Rangers.^[40]

Political career[link]

Conservatives for Patients' Rights[link]

In February 2009, Scott founded Conservatives for Patients' Rights (CPR), which he said was intended to put pressure on Democrats to enact health care legislation based on free-market principles.^[41] As of March, Scott had given about $5 million for a planned $20 million ad campaign by CPR.^[42] CPR opposes the broad outlines of President Obama's health-care plans and has hired Creative Response Concepts (CRC), a public relations firm which previously worked with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth among others.

2010 Florida gubernatorial campaign[link]

Scott ran against Democratic nominee Alex Sink.^[43] On April 9, 2010, Scott announced his candidacy for the 2010 Republican Party nomination for Governor of Florida.^[44] Susie Wiles, former communications chief to Jacksonville Mayor John Peyton, served as his campaign manager, and Tony Fabrizio was his chief pollster. It was reported on May 7 that Scott's campaign had already spent $4.7 million on television and radio ads.^[45] Scott's first video advertisement was released to YouTube on April 13.^[46]

During the primary campaign, Scott's opponent, Bill McCollum, made an issue of Scott's role at Columbia/HCA. Scott countered that the FBI never targeted him. Marc Caputo of Miami Herald contended that a 1998 bill sponsored by McCollum would have made it more difficult to prosecute Medicare fraud cases, and was counter to his current views and allegations.^[47] Scott won the August primary with approximately 47% percent of the vote, compared to 43% voting for McCollum, with McCollum conceding the race after midnight. By the October 25, 2010 Tampa debate between Scott and Alex Sink, Scott had spent $60 million of his own money on the campaign compared to Democratic opponent Alex Sink's reported $28 million.^[48] The Fort Myers News Press quoted Scott as saying in total he spent $78 million of his own money on the campaign, although other figures indicate he spent slightly over $75 million. He won in the general election for Governor of Florida, defeating Sink by around 68,000 votes, or 1.29%.^[49] He assumed office as the 45th Governor of Florida on January 4, 2011.

Redistricting amendments[link]

In the 2010 elections, Florida voters passed constitutional amendments banning gerrymandering of congressional and legislative districts.^[50] In February 2011, Scott withdrew a request to the United States Department of Justice to approve these amendments, which, according to The Miami Herald, might delay the implementation of the redistricting plan because the Voting Rights Act requires preclearance of state laws likely to have an impact on minority representation. Scott said he wants to make sure that redistricting is done properly.^[51] Several advocacy groups sued Scott in federal court to compel Scott to resubmit the acts to the Justice Department.^[52] Richard Pildes, a professor of constitutional law and expert on election law at New York University School of Law, called Scott's actions "extraordinary" because Scott was "essentially using a federal law obligation that binds the states to attempt to avoid enforcing a state law that he apparently would prefer the state had not adopted."^[53]

Rejection of federal funding for high-speed rail[link]

On February 16, 2011, Scott rejected $2.3 billion in federal funding to develop high-speed rail between Tampa and Orlando. Scott cited concerns about ridership and cost overruns.^[54] In response, a veto-proof majority in the Florida Senate approved a letter rebuking Scott and asking the Department of Transportation to continue funding.^[55][56] On February 18, United States Senators from Rhode Island Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse sent a letter to Ray LaHood, the United States Secretary of Transportation, to ask LaHood to redirect some of the rail funding intended for Florida to Rhode Island. Reed and Whitehouse said the money would improve Rhode Island's rail system and provide jobs in the state.^[57]

On March 1, 2011, two state senators filed a petition with the Florida Supreme Court to compel Scott to accept the rail funds on the grounds Scott lacked constitutional authority to reject funds which had been approved by a prior legislature.^[58] On March 4, the Florida Supreme Court held that Scott's rejection of the rail funds did not violate the Florida Constitution.^[59]

Port of Miami development[link]

Following his rejection of Central Florida's High Speed Rail project, Scott moved to have the Florida Department of Transportation amend its work plan to include $77 million for dredging the Port of Miami to a depth of 50 feet. Once the port is dredged, Panamax-sized vessels coming through the expanded Panama Canal could load and unload cargo there.^[60]

Florida law requiring drug screening for welfare applicants[link]

In June 2011 Scott signed a bill requiring those seeking welfare under the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to submit to drug screenings. Applicants who fail a drug test may name another person to receive benefits for their children.^[61] In an interview with CNN host Don Lemon, Scott said, "Studies show that people that are on welfare are higher users of drugs than people not on welfare" and "the bottom line is, if they're not using drugs, it's not an issue". Government researchers in 1999-2000 reported "that 9.6 percent of people in families receiving some type of government assistance reported recent drug use, compared to 6.8 percent among people in families receiving no government assistance at all."^[62] However preliminary figures show that just 2.5% of applicants tested positive for drugs, with 2% declining to take the test, while the Justice Department estimates that around 6% of Americans overall do drugs.^{[63][dead link]}

Election history[link]

2010 Florida Gubernatorial race[link]