Year: 2002
Type: article
Abstract: Martin Wells (hereafter ER&W).3ER&W offer a great deal of information about the real world of punitive damages, presenting a mixed verdict on our basic claims.Coglianese provides an impressively detailed account of the problem of achieving coherence in the world of administrative penalties.Kelman questions the importance of coherence and also urges that in many cases, people's judgments may be better if they lack a global perspective.We are pleased to say that we have few significant disagreements with the three commentaries.In brief, we think that ER&W's evidence is fully consistent with our basic claims, despite a conservative test; that Coglianese has elaborated helpfully on the problem of achieving coherence in civil penalties; and that Kelman's basic arguments should not be taken to dispute our claims, which are less different from his own than a reader of his commentary might infer.Apart from these points, which we elaborate below, we offer a more general suggestion, one that is perhaps insufficiently emphasized in our main paper: Even if it is demonstrated, incoherence usually is not taken to be outrageous.The persistence of incoherence, in many domains of the law, is closely connected with this psychological fact.
Source: Stanford Law Review
DOI: 10.2307/1229622
Language: English
Subfield: Economics and Econometrics
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W2294432623