{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02745664739884393, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.775, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reply to Criticisms of the (Means of) Execution Thesis as a Kind of Legal Sanction

The paper first outlines the thesis on (the means of) execution as a kind of legal sanction (esp. in the case of causing damage). It then sets out the basic theoretical arguments for rejecting the viewpoint according to which the duty of repair represents a sanction in the case of causing damage. The paper goes on to present the viewpoints of several legal philosophers (Bucher, MacCormick, Padjen, Pokrovac) who raised objections to the thesis on (the means of) execution. Finally, it critically analyses these objections and sets out six additional arguments with a view to strenghtening the said thesis.