杨春然

【摘 要】 不遵守填平原则的惩罚性赔偿与民事程序存在着一定的冲突。 从最佳威慑与彻底威慑的角度看，惩罚性赔偿实质上处于民事责任与刑罚之间，甚至有时与罚金刑无异，故需要提高对被告人的程序保护，其证明标准应当具有中间性，适用明确而令人信服的证明标准。从诉求正确的可能性、举证成本、风险收益的角度看，反映行为人主观过错程度的侵权行为的异常性的证明负担应当分配给原告。

【关键词】 惩罚性赔偿；最佳威慑；彻底威慑；证明标准；证明负担的分配

【中图分类号】 D918.9

【文献标识码】 A

【文章编号】 1674-1226（2012）04-0438-11

On the responsibility of proof standard of punitive damages. Yang Chunran.Shandong University of Technology， 255049.

【Abstract】 the punitive damages have conflicts with the civil procedure because it does not comply with the Restitution principle. The punitive damages lie between the civil liability and penalty from the relationship between the optimal deterence and total deterence. Therefore， the punitive damages require more procedure safeguard for defendants than the civil liability，and its proof standard should be the clear and convincing standard.However， from the probability of the party being correct， party′s cost of presenting evidence and amount at stake for party， burden of proof to the egregiousness of misbehavior that reflect the extent of "evil"of the defendant，should be allocated to the plaintiff.

【Key Words】 punitive damages， optimal deterence， total deterence， proof standard，Allocating the Burden of Proof