Discussing The Competation Of Mental Loss

This article discuss the question about moral damage.The whole article including:Firstly,the concept of moral damage which is about the concept of moral,moral damage,compensation for moral damage.It pointed that moral damage is not nonactual damage,soft-dollar damage,non-property damage or non-mental damage which is not very clearly. Using the concept which is called personality to instead of moral damage is inadvisable .The concept of benefit in civil law must belong to the subject and protected by law and could be quantized .In fact ,it just is fortune.So the concept which is called personality,identifical benefit,spirit benefit is not correct as well.What's more ,it hasn't got basis to distinguish from generalized and narrow theory .The compensation for moral damage means to calm down the spirit of the victim through giving money.In fact ,it means that using optimal stimulation to be instead of the malignant stimulation.Compensation of moral damage is in the premise of the right being aggressed,so the pure moral damage is violate the legal principal.Secondly,Application of the compensation of moral damage which discusses the field and subject of compensation of moral damage.I point that it is applied to the field of tort ,but it isn't applied to the field of breaking the contact.Breaking the contact could lead to moral damage ,but it could be calm down the damage from the compensation of fortune and it needn't be compensated independently.Tort could be leading to break the contact .But if the moral damage is happened ,people could be saved by litigation of tort .Compensation of the civil law is means to recover the fact that victims'right ande fortune were damaged.If the tort happened , infringer should give compensation ,but if the introduction that breaking contact happened , infringer should make up for the loss of fortune but not give the compensation .Not only infringe upon the right of fortune but also infringe upon the right of person is both indirect damage .Except the person who is lack of capacity for action,the object of right of health is only belong to physiological function but the mental function.So if right of health is damaged ,which only could be presumed to be mental damage but the direct damage.I still discuss the subject including legal person,unincorporated organization,relatives of victims,victims who has the whole mental obstacle because of the tort,victims who lose capacity of the whole or the part and the question that if compensation of mental damage happened in civil suit collateral to criminal proceedings.Thesis pointed out that the legal person is only fictional subject and it hasn't got living activity.So it doesn't exist the problem of mental damage.Who claim that mental damage applies to legal person.The reason why is they misunderstand the mental damage.They think mental damage is not only including the mental pain but also the lost of mental benefits.The logic is if you admit the mental benefit ,you admit the lost of mental benefit ,then you admit the mental damage including the lost of mental benefits ,then you admit the legal person exists the problem about mental damage.So the wrong primise gets the wrong conclusion.My article points that if the fame right of legal persons is damaged ,they could sue for the compensation of fortune ,but the mental one through compare the legal and unincorporated organization .The directors of legal person couldn't ask for any compensation including the compensation of mental damage . That the illegal people organizes is not the main body , problem, but illegal person organization that nonexistent right is encroached on fame having self. The fame that the illegal people organizes is encroached on, if the fame having also encroached on a member, the member may ask remedies self fame, including asking a spirit compensation for damages. About the near relatives of the victim, this thesis point outs that once the victim'mental damage is recovered, his near relatives'mental damage is recovered at the same time. So, generally, the near relatives of the victim can not require the damages, but there are exceptions, this thesis discusses this exceptions, such as the victim loss the sex ability because of the injurious act, the victim died because of the injurious act, the victim died after sued for damages, and before the judge.At last ,about whether there are metal damage compensation in criminal incidental civil lawsuit, this thesis points out that, in the theory of law, if the legislators consider that the criminal judgment is enough for the victims'to recover the metal damage, the law must forbidden the criminal incidental civil suitors to require compensation for metal damages, otherwise, it can be required. So, it's a problem of legislation policy, reflecting the legislators'sense of worth.The third section is"The Basis of Compensation for Moral Damage Compensation". The essay compared Moral Damage Compensation with General Civil Compensation, and points out their differences. First, from the logical of giving evidence, General Civil Compensation proves torts by giving the evidences of damage consequences, which means from consequence to behavior; Moral Damage Compensation presumes moral damage occurred by giving the evidences of torts, which means from behavior to consequence; Second, from the basis of measure, General Civil Compensation is single,and consequences of damage are the only basis of compensation; Moral Damage Compensation is comprehensive and has its special. First, Moral Damage Compensation is hard to give evidences, so normally, same torts presume same moral damage; Second, factors unrelated to the plots of torts, such as infringer's ability to provide compensations, the local living standard, influence the amount of comfort. As a result, same degree of moral damage can't presume same amount of comfort. On this basis, the essay analyzed the issue of"same life with different prices"and fault factors of moral damage, discussing with some popular ideas.The forth section is"the function of Moral Damage Compensation", which pointed out that Moral Damage Compensation just has comfort function. Dominant theory says that it has some meanings of punitive compensation and claims Moral Damage Compensation having punitive function, which can't be established. Punishment is not a right, but a power. Civil relations are equal, never a party can punish another. A country can sanction civil subjects with penalty payment. In civil relations, a party punishes another party by receiving penalty payment which means unequal status in obtaining properties between two parties and contraries to the fundamental nature of Civil Law. There's no punishment and it shouldn't have such contents in the adjust principles of Civil Law.The conclution pointed out that Civil Law is a huge theoretical system. Any conception and scope in Civil Law are the nodes of its theoretical system. And any node of Civil Law theoretical system exists in contact with the other nodes among different from each other and interdependent, so it can't be explained alone. That means each Civil Law problem is not isolated. Moral Damage Compensation is not only involved many conceptions of Civil Law, but also some philosophy and psychology issues. It's really complex. Dominant theory has many misunderstandings, which may relate to the misunderstandings about philosophy and psychology. However, I'm afraid that it's the result of misunderstandings about other conceptions of Civil Law.