In law, there seems to be a big emphasis on finality. So, judges decide a matter one way or the other, there are rules against double jeopardy in criminal law. Even in much earlier forms of law, there were provisions to conclude matters -- so, the idea of weregild in Anglo-Saxon law or the idea of an eye for an eye could be interpreted as intended to place limits on liability. Morally and psychologically, however, matters seem more ambiguous. So, I think many Christians believe we carry a taint of Adam's sin, and need to be absolved of it; the feeling of guilt for a wrongdoing goes on and on, with no predetermined end, much like the feeling of grief after a death; and many countries have enacted provisions for historical wrongdoing -- for instance, positive discrimination in favour of indigenous peoples -- that have no expiry date. What I wanted to ask is, philosophically speaking, ought there be limits to liability? Or is philosophy silent on the issue?

Read another response about Law