Foreword

Authors

• Thomas A. Eaton, University of Georgia School of Law

Publication Date

2001

Abstract

It has long been accepted that deterrence and vindication are two of the primary purposes of the body of law we know as "constitu�tional torts." Justices of every ideological stripe have acknowledged deterrence and vindication as the legitimate objectives of suits against governments and government officials who violate a person's constitutional rights. Justices with philosophies as divergent as Brennan's and Scalia's agree that civil rights actions serve an essential vindicatory function.' Justices Breyer, O'Connor, Blackmun, White, Marshall, and Powell have authored opinions that embrace the deterrent effect of such actions. The acceptance of deterrence and vindication as the twin goals of constitutional torts is so complete that the Justices and most scholars appear to take them as a given. The issues that divide members of the Court and commentators do not pertain to whether deterrence and vindication are legitimate and achievable goals, but rather how best to achieve them.

Recommended Citation

Eaton, Thomas A. (2001) "Foreword," Georgia Law Review: Vol. 35: No. 3, Article 2.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/glr/vol35/iss3/2