The deterrent purpose of compensation and the judiciary’s position on it (A comparative analytical study)

Compensation is considered one of the important topics that have received great attention from legal scholars in different legal systems and in different eras, due to the function it performs, which is to repair the damage that befell the injured person. The Iraqi Civil Law has stipulated compensation for two types of damage, which are material damage and damage. Moral and according to certain conditions, that is, the damage that befalls his money or that affects his feelings and emotions. Therefore, if a person is exposed to material or moral damage, he has the right to resort to the judiciary and demand compensation for the damage he suffered within a certain period and according to what the law stipulates. However, the emergence of the second function of compensation, which lies in the deterrent function, led national legislation to reconsider how they organize the issue of compensation in general. Some legislation adopted deterrent compensation, even if indirectly, while others refused to adopt it, justifying that compensation is to redress damage only and not to deter. However, there is a trend that sees the necessity of creating a second function for compensation, which is to punish the one who caused the harm for his mistake and negligence in order to correct his wrong behavior and deter others. This function is called the deterrent (punitive) function of compensation. This matter led some national legislation to reconsider how to organize the issue of compensation in general, so that it introduced deterrent compensation, whether directly