Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:24

From: Andrew Tettenborn

Subject: 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.

Andrew

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:  Re: bye-bye limitation?
Date:  Tue, 8 Jul 2008 15:05:13 +0100
From:  Tsachi Keren-Paz  
To:  Andrew Tettenborn  

Dear Andrew and colleagues,

I strongly disagree. This case, for me, is not even a difficult one. The defendant's interest in closure is by far outweighed by the plaintiff's interest in being compensated for being sexually violated.

I find especially unfortunate your flippant approach towards the victim by saying "That's tough, but now get on with your life". I wonder if you would have found it as an acceptable answer if YOU were raped. I think this phrase reflects insensitivity which is at times typical of men of certain age and upbringing.

The question how far should we stretch this principle in balancing between the interests of victims of deliberate acts in compensation and of defendants in closure is indeed not easy to answer. I have no doubt that in this case, allowing the claim is just, and in general I would accord much less weight to the interest in closure when on the one hand, a serious transgression had occurred, and on the other hand, the defendant only later became worth suing.

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