已阅读5页,还剩1页未读, 继续免费阅读
版权说明:本文档由用户提供并上传,收益归属内容提供方,若内容存在侵权,请进行举报或认领
文档简介
法学外文翻译温州姜BasicConceptsofCriminalLaw,page117-120NewYorkOxfordOXFORDUNIVERSITYPRESS1998IntentionversusNegligenceName:GeorgeP.FleteherTEXT:Therearesomesituationsinlifeinwhichpeoplesetouttoaccomplishcertaingoalsandtheyrealizetheiraimsexactlyasplanned.Theysetouttogotothelibraryandtheyarriveatthelibrary.Theysetouttogotostealabookandtheystealabook.Obviously,theaimsaresometimesgood,sometimesbad.Butveryoftenpeoplegetwheretheywanttogo.Thesearecaseofintentionalconduct,ofsettingonessightsonrealizingaparticulartarget,whetherthegoalbesociallydesirable(goingtothelibrary)orcriminal(stealingabook).Inmanysituations,however,weaccomplishbothgoodandbadnotastheobjectofourintentionsbutastheunwittingsideeffectsofourconduct.Imaginethatsomeonedropsawalletfullofcash,astarvingmotherthenfindsitandusesthefundstosavethelivesofherthreechildren.Losingthewalletwasanaccident,andgoodcameofit.Orsupposethatapharmacistmislabelsabottleofpoisonasanutritionalfoodsupplementandthencasuallyleavesapackageofthebottlesinthebackofhisstore.Astreetpersonfindsthebottlesofpoisonandafterreadingthelabels,drinksthepoisonanddies.Mislabelingthebottlewasanaccident,moreorless,butgreatharmcameofit.Thepersonwhodroppedhiswalletmightfeelgoodthathismoneywasappliedtoagoodpurpose,butitwouldbeoddforhimtoclaimcredittoexpectpraiseandappreciationfromothersforsavingthelivesofthethreechildren.Butthepharmacistwhomislabeledthepoisonmightberesponsible,bothmorallyandlegally,forthedeathofthepersonwhoconsumedthepoison.Thisdifferenceshouldpuzzleus.Praiseforgooddeedsseemstopresupposeanintentiontodogood,butblameforharmfuldeedsneednotbeattendedbyanintentiontoharm.Grantingcreditandgivingpraiserequire,itseems,achoosingtodogood,aninvestingofoneselfinphilanthropy.Wrongdoingdiffers.Ifthepharmacistcouldavoidendangeringthepublicbytakingappropriatemeasures,heisrequiredtodoso.Ofcourse,thereismuchworktobedoneinfiguringoutwhattheseappropriatemeasuresare.Butifhepaystoolittleattentiontothemeasuresnecessarytoprotectthepublicfromthepoisonsinhisshop,hiscausingharmwillbelabelednegligent.Andnegligentlycausingharmcanprovideabasisforcriminalliabilityaswellasmoralcensure.SinceRomanlawyerscarvedoutapplicationsforthetermsdolus(intention)andculpa(fault,negligence),lawyersintheWesternlegaltraditionhaverelieduponthispairofwordstoassaybothcriminalandcivilresponsibility.Receivingpraisefordoinggoodrequiresagoodintention.Butitseemsthatwecanbeblamedfortheharmwebringabouteitherbyintentionornegligence.AlllegalculturesintheWestrecognizethedistinctionbetweenintentionalandnegligentwrongdoing,butthereisgreatdisagreementaboutthecontoursandtheimplicationsofthesewaysofbeingheldresponsible.Negligence:ObjectiveandSubjectiveWhyisnegligencesotroublingasagroundofliability?Therearesome,assuggestedabove,whodonotregardnegligencetobeaformofmensreaorapropergroundforblamingeithercausingharmofmakingmistakes.Thereareotherswhoinsistthatnegligenceisanobjectivestandardandthat,therefore,negligenceinvariablyentailsadepersonalizedandunjustjudgmentofresponsibilityandblame.Thenegligentarenotjudgedonthebasisofwhattheyhaveactuallydonebutontheextentoftheirdeviationfromthemythicalstandardofthereasonableperson.Thiscritiqueofnegligencehasbecomeacute.Inrecentyearsasmanyfeministscholarshavearguedthatthestandardofthereasonablepersonhasamalebiasbuiltintoitandthat,therefore,theproperstandardforjudgingfemalesuspectsshouldbea“reasonablewoman”standard.Theterms“objective”and“subjective”getinthewayofclarifyingthisdisputeandtryingtoresolveit.Theproblemisthatthetermsmeandifferentthingstodifferentpeople.Sometimes“subjective”istakentomean:asthesuspectpersonallybelieves.Forexample,inafamousnineteenth-centurycase,Commonwealthv.Pierce,thealternativetoanexternalorobjectivestandardofnegligencewasthoughttobeoneinwhichthedefendantsgoodfaithwascontrolling.InPierce,thedefendant,practicingpubliclyasaphysician,causedthedeathofapatientbyapplyingkerosene-soakedflannelstoherskin.Concludingthatthestandardofliabilitywas“external,”JusticeOliverWendellHolmes,Jr.wrotethatthequestionwaswhetherthetreatmentwouldhavebeen“recklessinamanofreasonableprudence.”Thepointofsayingthatthestandardwas“external”wastostressthatgoodfaithwasnotadefenseandthatthedefendantmightbeguilty,eventhoughhethoughthewasdoingtheprudentthing.Inonesense,then,theconflictbetweenobjectiveand“internal”standardsofgoodfaith.InamodernreplayoftheprobleminPierce,BernhardGoetzargued,afterhehadshotfouryoungmenwhosurroundedhiminthesubway,thattheNewYorkstatutorystandardof“reasonablyperceiving”athreatofrobberyshouldbejudgedbythesubjectivestandardofgoodfaith.Remarkably,theappellatecourtsandevenalawprofessoragreedwithhim.WhenthecasefinallyreachedtheNewYorkCourtofAppeals(thehighestcourtinthestate),thejudgesunanimouslyandthatthestatuteimpliedthestandardofthereasonablepersonandthatthereforeGoetzsperceptionbothofdangerandofthenecessityofshootingshouldbejudgedaccordingtoanexternalcommunitystandardofreasonablebehavior.ThebeautyoftheMPCprovisiononnegligenceisthatitdistinguishesclearlybetweentheexternalorobjectivestandardofanunreasonableriskandtheactor-specificissueofpersonalresponsibilityrunningtherisk.Inthisrespect,thestructureoftheMPCprovisiontracesthedistinctionwedevelopedinchapter5betweenwrongdoingandpersonalresponsibility.Thewrongdoingofnegligenceconsistsinrunningthesubstantialandunjustifiableriskofcausingharm.Responsibilityforrunningtheriskisresolvedbytheinquiryintowhatareasonablepersonwoulddounderthecircumstances.Withthisstructuraldistinction,however,wehavenotresolvedthequestionwhethertheactor-specificissueofresponsibilityshouldbeunderstoodobjectivelyorsubjectively.Andonceagain,theterminologyitselfbreedsconfusion.Oneargumentisthattheveryinvocationofthereasonablepersonentailssome“objectification”anabstractanddepersonalizedstandardthatisperseunjust.Theimplicationofthiscritiqueisthatthejuststandardisonethatis“subjective.”Thefactisthateverystandardforresponsibilityisexternalorobjectiveacommunitystandardofresponsiblebehavior.Theonlycoherentbasisforblamingsomeoneforengaginginharmfulaction(e.g.,takingasubstantialandunjustifiableriskofharm)istocomparethesuspectsdecisiontoactwithastandardofproperbehavior.Evenwheretheactor“chooses”toengageintherisk,thechoiceprovidesanadequategroundforcriminalresponsibilityonlyifthechoicedeviatesfromtheexpectedbehaviorofareasonableperson.AccordingtotheMPCsdefinitionofrecklessness,anactoriscriminallyresponsibleforchoosingtodisregarda“substantialandunjustifiablerisk,”onlyifthe“disregardoftheriskinvolvesagrossdeviationfromtheactorssituation.”Theterm“law-abidingperson”takestheplaceofthe“reasonableperson”;buttheprincipleremainsconstant:Theonlywaytojudgeresponsibilityforrecklessandnegligentrisk-takingistomeasuretheactorsconductagainstcommunityexpectations.Thechoicetodisregardtheriskisnotperseculpable;itisculpableonlyifitfallsshortofthecommunitystandardofreasonablelaw-abidingbehavior.Sincethecriterionof“choice”doesnoteliminatetheproblemofjudgingconductagainstacommunitystandard,thenaggingquestionremains:Howdowedistinguishbetweenajustandanunjuststandardofnegligence?Isitclearlybetter,morejust,toindividualizethestandardofresponsibilitytoincludeallthefactorsthatbearontheactorsdecisiontoruntherisk?Indeed,shouldweindividualizethestandardofjudgmenttothepointthatweconsider“theinfinitevarietiesoftemperament,intellectandeducation”thatleaddifferentpeopletoactdifferently.InassessingwhethersomeonelikeBernhardGoetzreasonablyperceivedariskofdangerandreasonablyperceivedariskofdangerandreasonablyreactedtohisperception,hispriorexperiencewithcrimeinhtsubwaybecomesrelevant;ifmuggedinthepast,hewouldunderstandablyandreasonablyperceivetheearlystagesofapossiblemuggingasthreatening.Ifasmallwomanisattackedbyalargeman,thesedifferencesingenderandsizebecomerelevantinassessingwhetherherresponsetotheperceivedattackisreasonableunderthecircumstances.Myclaimhereisnotthatthestandardshouldbe“subjective”(dependentontheactorsgoodfaith)butratherindividualizedinordertoachieveafairstandardofjudgingindividualbehavior.Manytheoristsdespairofthepossibilityofajuststandardofnegligencebecausetheythinkthatitisimpossibletoindividualizethestandardofjudgment.Ifthe“reasonableperson”isadjustedtotheinfinitevarietyofindividualdifferences,thestandardforjudgingwouldcollapseintotheobjecttobejudged.Wewouldbeforcedtoembracethesloganofinfiniteunderstanding:Toutcomprendre,cesttoutpardoner.Ifweknoweverythingaboutthedefendant,wemustexcusehim.Therefore,ifwemakethestandardofjudgmenttooparticular,wehavenochoicebuttoexcuseormitigatethecrime.Ifthereasonablepersonweredefinedtobejustlikethedefendantineveryrespect,hewouldindeeddoexactlywhatthedefendantdidunderthecircumstances.Butthisexcessiveindividualizationrestsonamistake.Objectivefactorsbearingonthedecisiontoactmightberelevant,butitwouldnotfollowthatallthefeaturesofthedefendantscharacterwouldenterintotheequation.Ifthedefendantsheadinjuryorimpotenceisconsideredinassessingthelikelybehaviorofareasonableperson,itdoesnotfollowthat“theactorssituation”includeshisinsensitivity,greed,zealforadventure,orevenhiswickednessasaperson.Excessiveandmistakenindividualizationderivesfromthefailuretoattendcloselytothetypesofcharactertraitsthatproperlysubjectwrongdoerstojudgmentsofblame.Supposethatoutofazealforthrillsandadventure,amotoristhabituallydrives100mph.Isshesubjecttoblameforthisexcessiverisk-t
温馨提示
- 1. 本站所有资源如无特殊说明,都需要本地电脑安装OFFICE2007和PDF阅读器。图纸软件为CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.压缩文件请下载最新的WinRAR软件解压。
- 2. 本站的文档不包含任何第三方提供的附件图纸等,如果需要附件,请联系上传者。文件的所有权益归上传用户所有。
- 3. 本站RAR压缩包中若带图纸,网页内容里面会有图纸预览,若没有图纸预览就没有图纸。
- 4. 未经权益所有人同意不得将文件中的内容挪作商业或盈利用途。
- 5. 人人文库网仅提供信息存储空间,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对用户上传分享的文档内容本身不做任何修改或编辑,并不能对任何下载内容负责。
- 6. 下载文件中如有侵权或不适当内容,请与我们联系,我们立即纠正。
- 7. 本站不保证下载资源的准确性、安全性和完整性, 同时也不承担用户因使用这些下载资源对自己和他人造成任何形式的伤害或损失。
最新文档
- 河北省邢台市隆尧县2023-2024学年三年级下学期期中数学试卷
- 2023-2024-投资合作合同样本范本范例
- 期末测试卷(试题)-2023-2024学年北师大版二年级数学下册
- 莫西沙星、亚胺培西司他丁钠等临床抗生素使用误区
- 有关大学新学期学习计划范文汇编7篇
- 铁路精细化管理
- 汽车专业:电源系统考试题
- 饮料春节促销方案策划
- 企业运营管理实施方案
- 2024-房产买卖协议书模板标准版可打印
- 完美公司奖金制度
- 初中生物校本课程的开发与实施的开题报告
- 口腔医疗器械的清洗消毒灭菌培训PPT
- 电力需求侧管理的概念和基本措施
- 幼儿园教学课件语言教育《对对歌》
- 集团物资集中采购管理办法
- Unit1FacevaluesUnderstandingideas课件高中英语外研选择性
- 安徽昊帆生物有限公司年产770吨多肽试剂及蛋白质交联剂项目环境影响报告书
- 功能性便秘罗马IV新看点
- 彩色图解科学养牛技术
- SPC CPK超全EXCEL模板完整版可编辑
评论
0/150
提交评论