A Case for Criminal Negligence

Leipold, Andrew D.

doi:10.1007/s10982-010-9073-y

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…23 Above, I set aside another sceptical claim, that norms to avoid risk must be either impossibly demanding or merely arbitrary (Alexander 2000: 949, 952f). For effective criticisms, see Johnson (2010), Leipold (2010). Ripstein (2016: 102ff) emphasises the importance of framing matters in terms of 'ordinary carefulness'-in one sense platitudinous, in another an essential pointer to thoughtfully worked out expectations in complex environments.…”

Section: Non-negligence As a Shared Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking Responsibility for Negligence and Non-negligence

Williams

2019

Criminal Law, Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Negligence reminds us that we often do and cause things unawares, occasionally with grave results. Given the lack of foresight and intention, some authors argue that people should not be judged culpable for negligence. This paper offers a contrasting view. It argues that gaining control (over our agency, over a risky world) is itself a fundamental responsibility, with both collective and individual elements. The paper underlines both sides, focussing on how they relate as we ascribe responsibility or culpability. Following the introduction, Section 2 ("Culpability and Control: The Negligence Sceptics") argues that conscious awareness is neither necessary nor sufficient for control. Control is not a property of deliberate choice, so much as a practical achievement. Section 3 ("Non-negligence as a Shared Task") stresses the collective aspects of non-negligence: creating knowledge about risks, structuring environments to guard against them, and developing standards of care. Failings in the collective task, rather than lack of individual control, mean it can often be unfair to pin culpability on a single individual. Section 4 ("Culpability for Negligence Revisited") suggests that a basic duty of a responsible person is to acknowledge the ways in which we may do more or less than we mean to, often in ways that create risks. It then sketches an approach to culpability as part of a collective exercise: as we take responsibility for standards of care, and for our own and others' agency.

show abstract

Section: Non-negligence As a Shared Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking Responsibility for Negligence and Non-negligence

Williams

2019

Criminal Law, Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…44 Mental disorder arguably makes the application of an objective test unfair because it may significantly change a defendant’s knowledge and perception of the world, making them more likely to be negligent. Although there is broad support for the concept of criminal negligence, 45 Alexander and Ferzan argue that crimes of negligence should never be culpable. 46 Moore and Hurd 47 argue that some types of negligence can be culpable if they involve failing to take precautions to avoid certain risks or failing to improve one’s character which led to the taking of such risks.…”

Section: Mental Disorders and Crimes Of Recklessness Or Negligencementioning

confidence: 99%

To what extent should expert psychiatric witnesses comment on criminal culpability?

Hallett

2019

Med Sci Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following the Court of Appeal case of R v Edwards in England and Wales, there has been increasing pressure for expert psychiatric witnesses to comment explicitly on how a defendant’s mental disorder affects their culpability. Culpability is the degree to which a person can be held morally or legally responsible for their conduct, but defining culpability has proved difficult. Mental disorder does not translate easily into degrees of legal culpability. Although psychiatric evidence will often be central to such cases, the determination of culpability is a matter for the court, and experts should not comment on it explicitly. Nevertheless, certain areas of psychiatry may have a bearing on culpability, and ways in which experts may comment on these are suggested. Given the pressure on judges to determine culpability, experts need to be honest about the limits of medical science to answer legal questions and the professional necessity to remain within their area of expertise.

show abstract

The road to the dock: prosecution decision-making in medical manslaughter cases

Griffiths

Sanders

2013

Bioethics, Medicine and the Criminal Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Case for Criminal Negligence

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Taking Responsibility for Negligence and Non-negligence

Taking Responsibility for Negligence and Non-negligence

To what extent should expert psychiatric witnesses comment on criminal culpability?

The road to the dock: prosecution decision-making in medical manslaughter cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About