Intention vs. Negligence

G. Fletcher
{"title":"Intention vs. Negligence","authors":"G. Fletcher","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190903572.003.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores the role of mental state in criminal cases, considering the concept of negligence. Lawyers trained in the common law tradition are familiar with the concept of mens rea and the maxim actus non facit reus nisi mens sit rea. Literally this means that there is no criminal (or guilty) act without a criminal (or guilty) mind. The problem is that there are both descriptive and normative interpretations of mens rea and of the maxim. The normative or moral interpretation of mens rea holds that the term equivalent to a guilty mind, for example, a basis for blaming the actor for their conduct, is something not possible in the face of the defenses considered in the last chapter. Meanwhile, negligence is based, as in the classic definition from the law of torts, on the conduct of “a reasonable person under the circumstances.” The important point is that negligence is based on the fault of not knowing.","PeriodicalId":356531,"journal":{"name":"The Grammar of Criminal Law","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Grammar of Criminal Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190903572.003.0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter explores the role of mental state in criminal cases, considering the concept of negligence. Lawyers trained in the common law tradition are familiar with the concept of mens rea and the maxim actus non facit reus nisi mens sit rea. Literally this means that there is no criminal (or guilty) act without a criminal (or guilty) mind. The problem is that there are both descriptive and normative interpretations of mens rea and of the maxim. The normative or moral interpretation of mens rea holds that the term equivalent to a guilty mind, for example, a basis for blaming the actor for their conduct, is something not possible in the face of the defenses considered in the last chapter. Meanwhile, negligence is based, as in the classic definition from the law of torts, on the conduct of “a reasonable person under the circumstances.” The important point is that negligence is based on the fault of not knowing.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
故意与过失
本章结合过失的概念,探讨了精神状态在刑事案件中的作用。在普通法传统中受过训练的律师都熟悉行为实质的概念和“事实不为事实即为事实”这一准则。从字面上看,这意味着没有犯罪(或有罪)的思想就没有犯罪(或有罪)的行为。问题在于,对于行为、意图和格言,既有描述性的解释,也有规范性的解释。对犯罪原意的规范或道德解释认为,等同于有罪心理的术语,例如,谴责行为人行为的基础,在面对上一章所考虑的辩护时是不可能的。与此同时,正如侵权行为法的经典定义那样,过失是基于“在特定情况下一个理性人”的行为。重要的一点是,过失是基于不知道的过错。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Causation vs. Background Events Offenses and Defenses Intention vs. Negligence Punishment vs. Tort Liability Accidents vs. Mistakes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1