Skip to main content
Log in

Desert, Harm Reduction, and Moral Education: The Case for a Tortfeasor Penalty

  • Published:
Res Publica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lippke, R.L. Desert, Harm Reduction, and Moral Education: The Case for a Tortfeasor Penalty. Res Publica 9, 127–147 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024123000629

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024123000629

Navigation