Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risarcimento e sanzione mirrors the clash between the two opposite views concerning the role of private actions in defense of the public good; it expresses the tension, in many Continental European jurisdictions, between the stated goal of fully compensating the wronged person and the often-dissimulated temptation of punishing the author of highly reprehensible actions. Risarcimento e sanzione seeks to re-assess the actual extension of these two souls of the law of torts, with a view to emancipating the realm of compensatory damages from the residual traces which may endanger their insurability, while revitalizing the place and role of civil sanctions as instruments of widespread oversight on the effectiveness of fundamental rights (through their 'private' enforcement), in the framework of a renovated, more person-oriented European Union law. If the control over the effectiveness of fundamental human rights continues to be entrusted in the traditional, purely-compensatory machinery of private law, then the maximum result achievable in the civil process remains the compensation of the victims for the harm actually suffered (the sufficiency of which, especially with respect to intangible harm, is - to say the least - debatable). From such angle, judges have no evaluative power as to the actual degree of reprehensibility or culpability of the wrongdoer's conduct. Generally, sanctions are irrational when they bear no relationship with the gravity of the offense: and it is so not only when sanctions are utterly excessive, but also in cases where - albeit necessary - for one reason or another they are not applicable. The book aims to shed light into the multiform intersection of tort law and criminal law, in Italy and beyond, preliminarily looking at the political choices underlying the clear-cut separation of action privee and action publique in the French Code of Crimes and Punishments of 1795 (and its repercussions on the ensuing tort litigation in Europe). It goes on to analyze the differentiated approaches to damages in the United States (common law P.D., qui tam actions, statutory damages), the evolution of the English law of exemplary and aggravated damages, the developments and the judicial responses in New Zealand and Australia. Moreover, of great importance is the punitive Quebec Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, which reveals that the issue of extra-compensatory civil sanctions (especially for violation of inviolable rights) cannot be deemed a prerogative of common law systems. The comparative study hence leads into Italian law, which most of the proposals are addressed to. The final chapters highlight the many civil sanctions provided for by currently-in-force statutes, showing in conclusion that the availability of extra-compensatory damages depends, by and large, on the courage of judges in enforcing those very rules and, above all, the principles governing the legal system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".