Research Paper on:
Due Process Clause and Punitive Damages

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
receiving money for spilling a cup of "too hot" coffee on their laps to dollars derived from class action law suits that hold companies liable in a number of ways.  Punitive damages are at the crux of a controversy that currently exists in the civil justice system ("Punitive," 2002). This issue had also been the focus of reform efforts at  both the state and local levels of government (2002). It has been argued that punitive damages have become an unpredictable feature of the legal landscape, and imposes burdens on businesses  that are out of proportion to the supposed wrong-doing (2002). Others claim that punitive damages are necessary in order to punish and deter egregious behavior (2002). In other words,  many large corporations will not act in the best interests of the public. If they are in violation of some law or act, they can easily absorb certain penalties. Yet,  punitive damages takes them beyond the ordinary fee and provides a deterrent for other companies not to do the same thing. Although there are supporters of punitive damages, there  are other issues. Is it constitutional? Should the assessment of punitive damages against businesses that are held liable for gross negligence be considered a violation of the due process  clause? The doctrine of Substantive Due Process contends that the actual clause does not just require "due process," but also, basic procedural rights ("Substantive," 2002). It also protects basic  substantive rights, which are those general rights that are reserved for the individual and gives them the power to possess or to do particular things (2002). This is true despite  the governments desire to the contrary, and such are equated with rights like freedom of speech and religion (2002). "Procedural" rights are particular rights that, instead, dictate how the government