Graduate studies at Western
Res Publica 9 (2):127-147 (2003)
|Abstract||Those found liable for negligently injuring others are required to compensate them, but current practices permit most tort feasors to spread the costs of their liability burdens through the purchase of insurance. Those found guilty of criminal offences, however, are not allowed to shift the burdens of their sentences onto others. Yet the reasons for not allowing criminal offenders to shift such burdens – harm reduction, retribution, and moral education – also appear to retain some force in relation to negligent tort feasors. Arguments for and against limiting the abilities of negligent tort feasors to spread such costs, thus imposing a penalty on them, are discussed. The conclusion reached is that further consideration of such a penalty is warranted.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Adina Nicoleta Gavrilă (2011). Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished? Arguments for and Against the Centuries-Old Punishment. Journal for Communication and Culture 1 (2):82-98.
Avihay Dorfman (2010). Can Tort Law Be Moral? Ratio Juris 23 (2):205-228.
Nelson T. Potter (2002). Kant and Capital Punishment Today. Journal of Value Inquiry 36 (2-3):267-282.
Joel Feinberg (1984). The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
Patrick Lenta & Douglas Farland (2008). Desert, Justice and Capital Punishment. Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (3):273-290.
Samuel C. Rickless (2011). The Moral Status of Enabling Harm. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (1):66-86.
Howard Simmons (2010). Moral Desert: A Critique. University Press of America.
Theodore M. Benditt (1982). Liability for Failing to Rescue. Law and Philosophy 1 (3):391 - 418.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #122,521 of 739,398 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?