|
In criminal law, recklessness (also called unchariness) is one of the four possible classes of mental state constituting ''mens rea'' (the Latin for "guilty mind"). To commit an offence of ''ordinary'' as opposed to strict liability, the prosecution must be able to prove both a ''mens rea'' and an ''actus reus;'' ''i.e.'', a person cannot be guilty of the offence for one's actions alone. There must also be an appropriate intention, knowledge, recklessness, or criminal negligence at the relevant time (see concurrence). Recklessness may constitute an offense against property or involve significant danger to another person. The precise definition of recklessness has been contested and has evolved. It generally involves a person pursuing a course of action while consciously disregarding the fact that the action gives rise to a substantial and unjustifiable risk. ==Definition of terms== Criminal law recognizes recklessness as one of the ''mens rea'' elements to establish liability. It shows less culpability than intention, but more culpability than criminal negligence. The test of any ''mens rea'' element is always based on an assessment of whether the accused had foresight of the prohibited consequences and desired to cause those consequences to occur. The three types of test are: #subjective where the court attempts to establish what the accused was actually thinking at the time the ''actus reus'' was caused; #objective where the court imputes ''mens rea'' elements on the basis that a reasonable person with the same general knowledge and abilities as the accused would have had those elements, although ''R v Gemmell and Richards'' deprecated this in the UK; or #hybrid, i.e. the test is both subjective and objective. The most culpable ''mens rea'' elements will have both foresight and desire on a subjective basis. Recklessness usually arises when an accused is actually aware of the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, but has gone ahead anyway, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim to the risk of suffering the foreseen harm but not actually desiring that the victim be hurt. The accused is a social danger because they gamble with the safety of others, and the fact they might have acted to try to avoid the injury from occurring is relevant only to mitigate the sentence. Note that ''gross'' criminal negligence represents such a serious failure to foresee that in any other person, it would have been recklessness. Hence, the alternative phrase "wilful blindness" acknowledges the link representing either that the accused deliberately engineered a situation in which they were ignorant of material facts, or that the failure to foresee represented such a danger to others that it must be treated as though it was reckless. Criminal systems of the civil law tradition distinguish between intention in the broad sense (''dolus directus'' and ''dolus eventualis''), and negligence. Negligence does not carry criminal responsibility unless a particular crime provides for its punishment.〔Dörmann, Doswald-Beck and Kolb, ''Elements of War Crimes'', 491〕〔Kaiser, ''Leistungsstörungen'', 333〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Recklessness (law)」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|