It has long been orthodoxy that punitive damages, because they are awarded in order to punish, are an anomalous remedy. So entrenched is this understanding that it has never been seriously challenged. However, even apparent truisms about the law should be questioned and, accordingly, this article offers a rival account. It contends that the deeply ingrained view that punitive damages are an aberration is a half-truth because several other remedial rules are also aimed, at least in certain circumstances, at punishment. We concentrate in this regard on the doctrine of remoteness and its attenuation where the defendant has intentionally injured the claimant, aggravated damages, the account of profits remedy and general damages. Overthrowing the orthodox understanding regarding punitive damages has important prescriptive implications. In particular, it follows that the belief that punitive damages are an alien presence in private law supplies no basis for confining the jurisdiction to award them.

中文翻译：

---

惩罚性赔偿与私法中的惩罚场所

长期以来，惩罚性赔偿金是一种异常补救措施，因为惩罚性赔偿金是为了惩罚而授予的，这长期以来一直是正统观念。这种理解是如此根深蒂固，以至于它从未受到过严重的挑战。然而，即使是关于法律的显而易见的老生常谈也应该受到质疑，因此，本文提供了一个对立的说法。它争辩说，认为惩罚性赔偿是一种失常的根深蒂固的观点是半真半假，因为至少在某些情况下，其他一些补救规则也旨在惩罚。在这方面，我们专注于被告故意伤害索赔人、加重损害赔偿、利润补救和一般损害赔偿的疏远原则及其减弱。推翻关于惩罚性赔偿的正统理解具有重要的规范意义。特别是，