Is Jammie Thomas-Rasset the P2P's first Martyr?

Both the defense side and plaintiff side has had lawyers who have commented about their level of surprise at the 1.92 million dollar judgment against Jammie. To put this in perspective, in Texas, in a medical malpractice trial in which sloppy actions of a doctor end up in the DEATH of someone, there is a cap that brings even a 40 million dollar judgment, immediately down to 250,000 dollars (claims on or before September 1,2003), and often, judges on appeal have even thrown THOSE out by saying the case was not properly proven.
http://www.mcandl.com/texas.html#VII
" In a medical malpractice action filed on or after September 1, 2003, regardless of the number of causes of action asserted, non-economic damages are limited to a total of $250,000 from all doctors and other individuals. Non-economic damages are limited to $250,000 from each hospital or other institution and a total of $500,000 from all institutions. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code. § 74.301 (Westlaw 2007). The cap applies to each "claimant," which includes everyone seeking damages due to one person's injury or death. Id.; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code. § 74.001(a)(2) (Westlaw 2007). A constitutional amendment authorizes this legislation. Tex. Const. art. III, § 66.

In a medical malpractice action for wrongful death, damages (both economic and non-economic) are limited to $500,000 (in 1977 dollars) plus the cost of any necessary medical or custodial care. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code. § 74.303 (Westlaw 2007). The predecessor of this statute was intended to apply to all medical malpractice, but was held to be unconstitutional except for causes of action created by statute, like wrongful death. Rose v. Doctors Hospital, 801 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. 1990). The cap is adjusted annually for inflation, § 74.303(b), and is now approximately $1,650,000. In actions filed on or after September 1, 2003, this limit applies to the total recovery, not separately to each defendant, and includes exemplary damages. § 74.303(a).

In any action not based on certain types of intentional criminal conduct, exemplary damages are limited to the larger of the following amounts: (a) non-economic damages (up to a maximum of $750,000) plus two times economic damages, or (b) $200,000. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 41.008 (Westlaw 2007)."

So, is the jury saying that downloading a few digital tunes, that one could usually pick up for a buck a piece online, is anywhere from almost 4 to 8 times worse than killing someone on the operating table through gross negligence?

If they are, then I humbly suggest a two week case in ethics and morals be given to all prospective jurors. It is beyond ludricrous to say that it is far worse for someone to make available on their computer, a few files of ones and zeros, and that be worse in exponential magnitudes, that causing the PERMANENT death of someone.

Methinks something is rotten not only in Demark, but in the jury room.
"So it goes."-Kurt Vonnegut
~Code