Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:36

From: Heather McLeod-Kilmurray

Subject: Bye-bye limitation?

Dear all

I agree strongly with Prof Keren-Paz.

Two very important purposes of these awards are also punishment and deterrence.

There is no limitation on the lingering, profound damage to the victim – why should there be a limitation for the intentional wrongdoer?

Heather McLeod-Kilmurray
Professor/Professeure
Environmental Law Group/Groupe de droit de l'environnement
University of Ottawa/Université d'Ottawa
Faculty of Common Law/Faculté de common law
57 rue Louis Pasteur Street
Ottawa K1N 6N5
(613) 562-5800 X 3138

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew Tettenborn  
Sent: July 8, 2008 10:24 AM
Subject: [Fwd: Re: bye-bye limitation?]

Dear Tsachi & colleagues,

Isn't there a difference here? Suffering isn't the same as compensation. I absolutely agree that the victim's interest in not suffering the abuse in the first place should be given the highest priority. But that's not the same as her interest in turning that past event into money 20 years down the line, which is the interest at stake here. I think that's much less important, and actually rather repellent.

I've always had my doubts about what purpose is served by large pain and suffering awards generally. It might help do something about recent trauma. But my doubts are magnified many-fold when the money appears nearly a quarter century after the pain.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>