译文（字数 3224）

正当程序和惩罚性损害赔偿的威慑理论（节选）

迈克A·盖斯特费尔德

1、介绍

惩罚性赔偿在美国法院已经被广泛认可“旨在威慑和惩罚”，然而作为一种合理的常规，惩罚性赔偿的威慑理由显然违反联邦宪法规定的正当程序可能要关注的惩罚性损害赔偿的管辖权。

在一条线的相对较近的情况下，美国最高法院已按照美国宪法中的正当程序条款规定侵权赔偿的惩罚性损害赔偿的程序性和实质性限制。法院最近处理了关于菲利普莫里斯公司在美国诉威廉姆斯一案。陪审团判给原告821485 美元补偿性赔偿金和 7950 万美元惩罚性损害赔偿金因为被告的欺诈，被告烟草公司引诱她的丈夫吸其生产的卷烟，最终导致他过早的死亡。菲利普 · 莫里斯公司有从事长时间运行的计划，旨在欺骗公众进吸烟被告，这种受谴责的行为引导俄勒冈州最高法院断定赔偿7950 万美元惩罚。

外文原文（字符数 10838）

UE PROCESS AND THE DETERRENCE RATIONALE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES( Excerpt)  

 Mark A. Geistfeld  

1. Introduction

Courts in the U.S. have widely recognized that punitive damages are aimed at deterrence and retribution.As conventionally justified, however, the deterrence rationale for punitive damages apparently violates the federal constitutional requirement of due process for reasons that are likely to be of concern for any jurisdiction that justifies punitive damages in this manner.

In a line of relatively recent cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution imposes procedural and substantive limitations upon tort awards of punitive damages. The Court most recently addressed this constitutional inquiry in Philip Morris USA v. Williams.The jury awarded $821,485 in compensatory damages and $79.5 million in punitive damages to the plaintiff due to the fraudulent manner in which the defendant tobacco company had induced her husband to smoke its cigarettes, ultimately causing his premature death.