Explaining “Pain and Suffering” Awards: The Role of Injury Characteristics and Fault Attributions

The present research explored factors thought to affect compensatory awards for non-economic ham (pain and suffering) in personal injury cases. Experiment 1 showed that the nature and severity of the plaintiffs injury had a strong effect on perceptions of the extent of harm suffered and on award amounts. The parties' relatively active or passive roles in causing the injury affected assessments of their degree of fault, but perceived fault had little influence on awards. Experiment 2 replicated with more varied cases the strong impact of injury severity on harm perception and on awards for pain and suffering. In both studies, the disability and the mental suffering associated with injuries were stronger predictors of awards than were pain and disfigurement.     

Reviews

Stephen Sestanovich (ed.), Rethinking Russia's National Interests. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic & International Studies, 1994, xii + 115pp., $14.95 p/b.

Neil Malcolm, (ed.), Russia and Europe: An End to Confrontation? London and New York: Pinter Publishers, for The Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, 1994, xi + 240pp., £35.00.

Douglas W. Blum (ed.), Russia's Future: Consolidation or Disintegration? Boulder, CO, San Francisco, CA & Oxford: Westview Press, 1994, 173pp., £33.50 h/b, £9.95 p/b.

Lynn D. Nelson & Irina Y. Kuzes, Property to the People. The Struggle for Radical Economic Reform in Russia. New York and London: M. E. Sharpe, 1994, xi + 268 pp., £48.00 h/b, £16.00 p/b.

Richard F. Kaufman & John P. Hardt (eds) for the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, The Former Soviet Union in Transition. Armonk, NY, York and London: M. E. Sharpe, 1993, xxiv + 1222pp.

Michael Jakobson, Origins of the Gulag. The Soviet Prison Camp System 1917–1934. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 1993, xiv+ 176pp., $28.00.

Paul R. Gregory, Before Command: An Economic History of Russia from Emancipation to the First Five‐Year Plan. Princeton; NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994, viii + 188pp., £30.00.

Helene Seppain, Contrasting US and German Attitudes to Soviet Trade, 1917–91. Politics by Economic Means. New York & Basingstoke: St Martin's Press and Macmillan, 1992, xiv + 349pp.

Graham Smith (ed.), The Baltic States: The National Self‐determination of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. London: The MacMillan Press Ltd, 1994, xii + 214pp., £40.00.

Jan Zaprudnik, Belarus: At a Crossroads in History. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992, xxiii + 278pp., £11.95 p/b.

Dirk Kretzschmar, Die Sowjetische Kulturpolitik 1970–1985. Bochum: Universitatsverlag Dr N. Brockmeyer, 1993, xxvi + 873pp., DM89.80.

Jan Kubik, The Power of Symbols against the Symbols of Power; The Rise of Solidarity and the Fall of State Socialism in Poland. Pennsylvania, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994, xiv + 322pp., £38.00 h/b, £13.95 p/b.

Ljerka Fulgosi & Vlasta Vince‐Ribaric (eds), Hundred Testimonies: The Moving Accounts of Croatian Displaced Persons and War Prisoners. Zagreb: Society of Croatian Professional Women and INA Consulting, 1994, 196pp., $20.00.

Theodor Bergman, Gert Schaefer & Mark Seldon (eds), Bukharin in Retrospect. New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1994, xxv +251pp.     

The hate that dare not speak its name: Pornography qua semi-political speech

In this essay we shall examine the contemporary jurisprudential thinking and legal precedents surrounding the issue of the sanctionability of pornography. We shall catalogue them by their logical presumptions, such as whether they view pornography as speech or act, whether they view pornography as obscenity, political hate-speech or anomalous other, whether they would scrutinize legislation governing pornography by a balancing of the harm of repression against the harm of permission, and who exactly they view as the victims.We shall take a special interest in the most recent, but unsuccessful, attempt by a subgroup of feminists to proscribe pornography by treating it as neither political speech nor sexual speech but speech which causes harm which is both political and sexual. They would like it to be considered as a special kind of odious propaganda undeserving of protection because it promulgates a mental state conducive to criminal activity, and hence is criminal in and of itself. However, the repression of propaganda, even odious propaganda, is not so easily accomplished in this country.Most anti-censors have emphasized the uncertainty of the causal connection between pornography and sexual violence. We shall contend that this is not the essential issue, and that, even if we agree with the allegations of pornography's prurient non-intellectual appeal and its tendency to excite criminal hostility, the current understanding of the Bill of Rights allows sanctioning only under the stringent requirement of the showing of a clear and present danger of specific and immediate acts.We raise the question of whether there should be a new standard for speech which is simultaneously political and sexual, and/or for speech whose harmful message is presented subliminally, on the grounds that such speech may not be adequately opposed by counter speech in the marketplace of ideas.