Tort as a Substitute for Revenge

Abstract

Courts often say that tort is a substitute for revenge. But it is not clear how the substitution is supposed to work. Taking the classic case of Alcorn v Mitchell as a template, this chapter argues that the primary reason for regarding tort as a substitute for revenge is that both are tools for doing corrective justice. In support of that contention, the chapter develops a communicative conception of corrective justice and defends it as superior to the standard Aristotelian picture. It then makes the case that tort and revenge share similar expressive aims.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 45 citations exist upstream.