Search

Varfolomeyev focuses on the role of international organizations in fighting the novel pandemics The global spread of the novel coronavirus infection has irreversibly transformed world politics Major international organizations cannot ignore these tectonic changes International "inaction" may seem unrealistic, because it is akin to criminal negligence The WHO defines a pandemic as the worldwide spread of a new disease 2 But note that this is a working (political) definition, not an international legal one The main international treaty for cooperation in health care is the International Health Regulations (IHR) This is an agreement between 196 countries, including all WHO Member States, to work together "for global health security " The IHR not only do not define a "pandemic," they do not even contain this term Under the IHR, states are required to notify the WHO of events that, according to certain criteria, may constitute an emergency

This article explores a high-profile review of cases of alleged historical investigatory police bias in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, referred to in The New York Times article, “When Gangs Killed Men for Sport: Australia Reviews 88 Deaths.” The title of the article contains the terms of a well-known feature of moral panic—a discovered crime fact and demand for an enforcement response disproportionate to the fact. Our analysis explores the response to the review of the list of cases, Strike Force Parrabell, as an illustration of runaway constructionism. Demand group-interest in the positive designation of the cases (as bias crime) was a means of acknowledging the prejudicial conduct of police during a time of wider attitudinal change. In spearheading the verification of this list of cases, demand groups and crusaders placed a high semiotic burden beyond its capacity as a comparable objective measure. The fitness of the list of 88 cases as a totem for police and societal wrongdoing requires evidence regarding disproportionality based on valid and reliable measures. Despite worldwide interest in NSW for its comparative high ranking in gay bias homicides, however, such ranking does not exist. Nonetheless, despite the impossibility that it stands in as proof of decades long prejudice, corruption or criminal negligence, the list of cases appears to do so anyway. As such, it is illustrative of the occupation of media frames and formats by weak data or of the runaway character of crime stories in an era of “fake news.”

RESUMEN: El estudio aborda la relevancia de los cursos causales hipotéticos para la imputación normativa del resultado a la conducta imprudente. Se exponen argumentos centrados en el perfil teleológico de las reglas de diligencia que concretan el deber de cuidado, defendiendo la adopción de los criterios del “aumento del riesgo” o bien, tratándose de supuestos de comisión por omisión, de la “disminución de oportunidades”. Se aclara la relación dogmática entre dicha valoración y el criterio de la “realización del riesgo” (o “fin de protección de la norma”), reafirmando la correspondencia estructural entre los delitos comisivos y los “omisivos impropios”. Finalmente, se pone especial énfasis en el significado práctico y político-criminal de la estructura dogmática defendida en materia de responsabilidad penal médica por error de diagnóstico.

The aim of this article is to show difficulties arising when courts judge the negligence of dog owners in absence of precise legislation and typical precedents. We analyze the elements of a crime in two cases where children were objects of canine aggression, and show how the courts constructed the issue of dog owners’ negligence. In Case 1 the Court of Appeal found that a foster parent was not negligent when leaving a boy with specific needs alone with a heavily built dog that then repeatedly bit the boy to death despite the owners attempt to pull away the dog. The court also ignored the signs of substandard animal husbandry including previous severe incidents where the dog owner also was injured. In Case 2, the Court of Appeal instead found that the breed of the dog also matter, and that not even adult presence is enough to protect a child from dog attack. Because both the child and the dog could behave unpredictably, continuous observation and supervision was required. In both cases, measures to prevent the incident were available and would have been easy to carry out.

We seem to be responsible for our beliefs in a distinctively epistemic way. We often hold each other to account for the beliefs that we hold. We do this by criticising other believers as ‘gullible’ or ‘biased’, and by trying to persuade others to revise their beliefs. But responsibility for belief looks hard to understand because we seem to lack control over our beliefs. In this paper, I argue that we can make progress in our understanding of responsibility for belief by thinking about it in parallel with another kind of responsibility: legal responsibility for criminal negligence. Specifically, I argue that that a popular account of responsibility for belief, which grounds it in belief’s reasons-responsiveness, faces a problem analogous to one faced by H.L.A. Hart’s influential capacity-based account of culpability. This points towards a more promising account of responsibility of belief, though, if we draw on accounts of negligence that improve on Hart’s. Broadly speaking, the account of negligence that improves on Hart’s account grounds culpability in a (lack of) concern for others’ interests, whereas my account of epistemic responsibility grounds responsibility for belief in a (lack of) concern for the truth.

Engineering codes are a key method to guide designs to safe and reliable outcomes. Many such codes have prescribed calculations where the user provides specific inputs in a series of calculations, often using charts or tables, to get specific outputs. The design margins, units, and underlying theory are not always apparent. Engineering codes may not be suitable for reverse engineering an incident or providing a failure prediction. This article examines a criminal negligence case in which an initial forensic analysis incorrectly applied the ASME Pressure Vessel Code to use Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of a failed pressure vessel section. The flaws in the original analysis were revealed by applying reverse engineering using conventional stress calculations and understanding basic material science. This emphasizes the need to understand the underlying theories with both engineering codes and numerical modeling. Subsequent FEA provided an accurate analysis report that was successfully used in court. These same methods can be applied to many other engineering codes and standards.

Die verschiedenen Konzepte fahrlässiger Mittäterschaft werden dargestellt und als nicht überzeugend befunden. Der Hauptteil der Arbeit analysiert nach der kursorischen Feststel-lung, dass das Analogieverbot der Figur nicht entgegensteht, konkret die Unbegründbarkeit fahrlässiger Mittäterschaft auf der Grundlage des höchstpersönlichen Schuldprinzips, das als verfassungsrechtlicher Grundsatz die Grundlage des gesamten Strafrechtssystems bildet. Die richtige Lösung bei fahrlässigem Zusammenwirken besteht in einer Vorverlagerung des Fahrlässigkeitsschuldvorwurfs unter Annahme eines psychischen Beitrags zum Erfolgseintritt. Dies entspricht sowohl dem Wesen der Fahrlässigkeitsdelikte als auch dem Schuldprinzip., This study critically analyzes the various ideas for negligent co-perpetration and concludes that this legal idea is not convincing. The main part of this study is to analyze that negligent co-perpetration lacks justification based on the guilt principle, which is the foundation of the entire criminal justice system, although negligent co-perpetration could be established, since this does not violate the prohibition of analogy. And the desirable solution for cases of neg-ligent cooperation is concretely presented.: To advance the accusation of negligence in ac-cordance with the nature of the criminal negligence and the guilt principle. The criminal negligence is based on the single concept of perpetrator and the psychological contribution could establish the illegality of behaviour. In order to apply this solution, the illegality of neg-ligent behavior must always be proven. Then there is no need for negligent co-perpetration.

Most children who receive sedation outside the operating room have good outcomes and benefit from efforts to reduce pain and anxiety during a procedure. However, administration of sedative and analgesic agents to children in the outpatient setting always carries some risk to the patient. If a child has an adverse outcome after sedation, and there is evidence of substandard care then there is the potential for a professional liability (“malpractice”) claim against the providers and/or the facility. It is difficult to track with any reliability the actual results of all such claims throughout the USA, in part because there is no uniform national system to report jury verdicts and judgments in state courts that are not appealed. Further, if a malpractice case is settled prior to a jury verdict, the details of those settlements are often kept confidential by the agreement of parties, typically at the request of the medical providers or their insurance carriers. A review of publicly available reports has identified several pediatric sedation claims of alleged negligence. In each of these malpractice cases, the allegations were that the care provided by the professionals (and/or institution) was below an established standard of care, that there was a breach of that standard and that the breach caused injury to the patient. Standard of care is defined as that care which a reasonable physician in a particular specialty would have given to a similar patient, under similar circumstances. Because most clinicians have similar access to information and knowledge, they are usually held to a national standard of care regardless of how remotely the individual may practice.

[spa] La presente investigación tiene por objetivo analizar las relaciones internas entre la teoría de la intervención delictiva y los criterios de imputación subjetiva, concentrándose específicamente en la estructura de la coautoría en el injusto imprudente. Para este propósito, se ofrece un enfoque centrado fundamentalmente en aspectos de carácter conceptual y estructural. Dicha perspectiva de análisis se desarrolla utilizando una determinada aproximación a las teorías de la imputación y de la acción. Luego de someterse a un examen particular, en aplicación de tales herramientas teóricas, se propone un análisis coordinado de las modalidades de intervención delictiva y de las formas de imputación subjetiva. Una vez fijado el objeto, estructura y presupuestos de la coautoría, se defiende y desarrolla su aplicación al injusto imprudente. Para ello, se ofrece una réplica al conjunto de críticas que acusan su presunta incompatibilidad, así como también un estudio de las principales propuestas constructivas en la dogmática penal actual. A continuación, sobre la base del aparato conceptual de las teorías de la imputación y de la acción, se propone un modelo de análisis que vincule los requisitos internos tanto de la coautoría como de la imprudencia. Esta estructura se aplica igualmente a los delitos impropios de omisión. La investigación finaliza ofreciendo una delimitación con otros casos de pluralidad de autorías en delitos imprudentes, que no satisfacen los requisitos de la coautoría., [cat] La present recerca té com objectiu analitzar les relacions internes entre la teoria de la intervenció delictiva i els criteris d'imputació subjectiva, concentrant-se específicament en l'estructura de la coautoria en l'injust imprudent. Amb aquest propòsit, s'ofereix un enfocament centrat fonamentalment en aspectes de caràcter conceptual i estructural. Aquesta perspectiva d'anàlisi es desenvolupa emprant una determinada aproximació a les teories de la imputació i de l'acció. Després de sotmetre's a un examen particular, en aplicació d’ aquestes eines teòriques, es proposa una anàlisi coordinada de les modalitats d'intervenció delictiva i de les formes d'imputació subjectiva. Un cop fixat l'objecte, estructura i pressupostos de la coautoria, es defensa i desenvolupa la seva aplicació a l'injust imprudent. Per a això, s'ofereix una rèplica al conjunt de crítiques que acusen la seva presumpta incompatibilitat, així com també un estudi de les principals propostes constructives en la dogmàtica penal actual. A continuació, sobre la base de l'aparell conceptual de les teories de la imputació i de l'acció, es proposa un model d'anàlisi que vinculi els requisits interns tant de la coautoria com de la imprudència. Aquesta estructura s'aplica igualment als delictes d'omissió impròpia. La recerca finalitza oferint una delimitació amb altres casos de pluralitat d'autories en delictes imprudents que no satisfan els requisits de la coautoria., [eng] The current investigation’s objective is to analyse the internal relationships between the participation theory and the subjective dimension of crime. In particular it focuses in co- perpetration’s structure in negligent wrongful offences. For that purpose, the approach used throughout this research is focused essentially in conceptual and structural aspects. In order to develop this analysis, a specific approach to imputation theory and action theory is applied. After having undergone a particular examination, those theoretical tools are applied in order to propose a coordinated analysis of the modalities of criminal participation and the forms of subjective imputation. Once the object, structure and elements of co-perpetration have been established, their application to the negligent wrongful is sustained and developed. In order to do so, firstly, the set of criticisms that accuse of an alleged incompatibility is answered, as well as a study of the main proposals in the current state of the debate that do recognize this possibility is developed. Then, based on the conceptual framework of the imputation and action theories, an analysis model that links the internal requirements of both co-perpetration and negligence is proposed. This same structure will be applied to improper omission offences. The research ends by offering a delimitation with other instances of plurality of authorship in negligent crimes, which do not satisfy the requirements of co-perpetration.

Do the actions of parents in withholding medical treatment from their children due to religious influence show wanton or reckless disregard for the safety and lives of their children? This project investigates the morally and legally complicated issue of the influence of religious beliefs in criminal negligence cases. My MRP is animated by the idea that similar cases in the past have been treated with leniency and ought to be given stricter punishments. I focus in particular on cases in which parents opt for alternative remedies or faith healing for ill children in ignorance or defiance of available medical treatments. I investigate the role of mistake of fact based on honest belief in prosecutions for criminal negligence causing death. Furthermore, I develop an argument that reliance on religious beliefs should not exculpate an accused parent from liability in criminal negligence cases. I argue that similar cases in the past have been treated with great leniency. This research proposes that cases of faith healing deaths be treated as cases of manslaughter, namely under section 222(5)(b), and that a minimum sentence of six years’ imprisonment be imposed for the death of vulnerable children.

Il saggio affronta le problematiche innescate dall’art. 42, co. 2 del cd. Decreto cura Italia che assimila i casi accertati di infezione da Coronavirus in occasione di lavoro ai casi di infortunio. Tra queste, vi è la temuta emergenza sanzionatoria che deriverebbe dall’attivazione di un procedimento penale per accertare la responsabilità datoriale in caso di contrazione della malattia da Covid-19 da parte di un lavoratore. L’autore anzitutto formula alcune proposte su come gestire il sovraccarico delle Procure, rendendo più rapide le indagini preliminari. Si occupa poi di fornire alcune risposte al problema della possibile esenzione dalla responsabilità per il datore nel caso in cui siano state rispettate tutte le misure previste dai decreti. Dopo aver evidenziato la potenziale decisività della carenza di conoscenze scientifiche in merito alla patogenesi connessa al virus, svolgendo un parallelismo con l’esperienza giudiziaria in tema di malattie da amianto, viene sostenuto che quand’anche assicurata dal legislatore la assoluta determinatezza delle regole cautelari, non ne deriverebbe la certezza di una esclusione del giudizio di responsabilità per il datore di lavoro che ad esse si sia attenuto. Pertanto, lo sforzo da compiere è piuttosto un ripensamento del criterio della colpa che, traendo spunto dall’esperienza della responsabilità medica, offra più adeguati criteri di attribuzione della responsabilità., Labour & Law Issues, V. 6, N. 1 (2020)

Although in German and in Spanish legal systems there are no express provisions with regard to the criminal negligence (culpa), this has not hindered the legal doctrine and jurisprudence to thoroughly analyse this form of guilt. This made it possible to qualify as intentional offences some deeds which in our legal system are considered to be committed with conscious negligence (involving foresight). The difficulty to distinguish between indirect intention (dolus eventualis) and conscious negligence (luxuria) has nonetheless determined Spanish courts to ask the legislator to provide a clear definition of indirect intention, which could be an additional argument with respect to the weaknesses entailed by such a legal approach.

In this article, I advance a culpability-based justification for command responsibility. Command responsibility has attracted powerful, principled criticisms, particularly that its controversial “should have known” fault standard may breach the culpability principle. Scholars are right to raise such questions, as a negligence-based mode of accessory liability seems to chafe against our analytical constructs. However, I argue, in three steps, that the intuition of justice underlying the doctrine is sound. An upshot of this analysis is that the “should have known” standard in the ICC Statute, rather than being shunned, should be embraced. While Tribunal jurisprudence shied away from criminal negligence due to culpability concerns, I argue that the “should have known” standard actually maps better onto personal culpability than the rival formulations developed by the Tribunals.

This chapter presents one of the most closely watched battles of a single citizen to save his coastal homeland. It is an investigative effort of an ordinary person to interrogate the state government’s usage of the morally outrageous ‘Act of God’ argument as a cause of floods. This chapter is a first-hand account of investigations made by the author before filing the first PIL (Public Interest Litigation) against the Government of Kerala calling it criminal negligence on their part rather than an ‘Act of God’. The author has also unraveled the concealment of facts in the Counter Affidavits filed by the Government to confuse the court with jargon, data, graphs and government memos.

Resumen: El presente artículo analiza la función que desempeñan las autorizaciones para distribuir productos farmacéuticos en la delimitación entre riesgos tolerados y desaprobados para la vida o salud. Luego de una toma de posición sobre la incardinación sistemático-dogmática y los efectos de tales autorizaciones en el injusto de los delitos imprudentes de homicidio y lesiones, se explica cuáles son los específicos riesgos para la vida y salud que deben estimarse como permitidos con el otorgamiento de las autorizaciones referidas. A continuación, se analizan críticamente las opiniones según las cuales las autorizaciones administrativas no permitirían excluir la responsabilidad penal por la lesión a bienes jurídicos individuales. Posteriormente, se abordan las consecuencias que tienen para el injusto de conducta de los delitos culposos de homicidio y lesiones las autorizaciones para distribuir productos farmacéuticos de carácter inválido pero eficaz. Finalmente, se explica el tratamiento que debe darse a las autorizaciones para distribuir medicamentos que quedan obsoletas con el paso del tiempo. Abstract: The article analyzes the function of the authorization to distribute pharmaceutical products in the delimitation between tolerated and disapproved risks for life or health. Following a position regarding the systemic-dogmatic incardination and the effects that such authorizations have over the wrongdoing in the crimes of negligent homicide and injuries, the article explains which are the specific risks to life and health that must be estimated as permitted with the grant of the aforementioned authorizations. Then, it critically analyses the opinions according to which the administrative authorizations do not exclude criminal responsibility for the harm to individual legally protected rights. Subsequently, it addresses the consequences that authorizations to distribute pharmaceutical products characterized as invalid but effective have over crimes of negligent homicide and injuries. Finally, it explains the treatment that must be given to authorizations to distribute medications that become obsolete with the passing of time.

The post-World War II Australian military war crimes trials of Japanese from 1945–51 have been criticised for using a rule of evidence considerably relaxed from the ordinary requirements of a criminal trial, one that did not require witnesses to give evidence in person. Circumstantial evidence suggests that, in relation to a trial held in Darwin in March 1946 for war crimes committed in Timor, the secretive Special Operations Australia, otherwise known as the Services Reconnaissance Department (SRD), took advantage of the rule. This article argues that the SRD did not allow their members to give evidence in person in an attempt to control and limit the dissemination of information about their operational and security failures in Timor from 1943–45. The SRD operation was adjudged by its own official historian as displaying ‘gross inefficiency and criminal negligence’. While the SRD’s failures were known to select personnel at the time, access restrictions to archival records in the post-war period,...

In spite of following one of the best management strategies, by the competent doctors with best available infrastructures in patient care, undesired results harming the patient cannot be avoided. Does it mean all these undesired results causing damage to the patient are as a result of medical negligence? Nowadays, patients are more aware of their rights on account of increased literacy level, role of print, electronic and social media and above all enactment of new law i.e. Consumer Protection Act 1986.Though the question of medical negligence is decided by Courts, but Courts on their own are not trained in medical science. Their decision is based on expert’s opinion. Judges apply the basic principle of law in conjunction with the law of land to make a decision. Reasonableness and prudence are the guiding factors. This paper deals with the legal aspects of medical negligence i.e. what is negligence and its type and various judgements especially the Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab 2005 and Anr, Martin F.D’Souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq 2009, V. Kishan Rao vs. Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital 2010 delivered by the Apex Court to make the law of negligence more rational and directions given to subordinate Courts, various Consumer Fora, State and investigating agencies regarding procedures to be followed before filing a complaint or registering a case of criminal negligence against the doctor.

This article focuses on the problems of the application of AI as a tool of crime from the perspective of the norms and principles of Criminal law. The article discusses the question of how the legal framework in the area of culpability determination could be applied to offenses committed with the use of AI. The article presents an analysis of the current state in the sphere of criminal law for both intentional and negligent offenses as well as a comparative analysis of these two forms of culpability. Part of the work is devoted to culpability in intentional crimes. Results of analysis in the paper demonstrate that the law-enforcer and the legislator should reconsider the approach to determining culpability in the case of the application of artificial intelligence systems for committing intentional crimes. As an artificial intelligence system, in some sense, has its own designed cognition and will, courts could not rely on the traditional concept of culpability in intentional crimes, where the intent is clearly determined in accordance with the actions of the criminal. Criminal negligence is reviewed in the article from the perspective of a developer’s criminal liability. The developer is considered as a person who may influence on and anticipate harm caused by AI system that he/she created. If product developers are free from any form of criminal liability for harm caused by their products, it would lead to highly negative social consequences. The situation when a person developing AI system has to take into consideration all potential harm caused by the product also has negative social consequences. The authors conclude that the balance between these two extremums should be found. The authors conclude that the current legal framework does not conform to the goal of a culpability determination for the crime where AI is a tool.

This chapter consists of a brief discussion on some legal aspects concerning scientists’ responsibility in risk prevention processes. After proposing some introductory considerations on scientists’ responsibility as such, the author deals with the L’Aquila earthquake crisis of 2009, when a strong quake destroyed significant parts of L’Aquila (Italy) and surrounding villages, killing more than 300 people. The chapter focuses on the relations between scientific knowledge, normative expectations, decision-making and criminal negligence for ‘failed’ risk assessment and management, paying particular attention to the role of ‘regulatory science’ in constructing the ‘reasonable person’ normative standard of care in the theory of criminal negligence. This allows explaining why the first judgement in the L’Aquila trial (2012) is not convincing, having misunderstood how policy-relevant science should participate in prevention processes and the construction of normative standards. In his conclusions, the author suggests some reasons for the recent tendency to blame experts when natural or technological disasters occur.

In this paper, the authors discuss the legal liabilities of the professional engineer as both the engineer of record of a project and the construction site manager. In particular, this paper analyzes the case of a fire at an end-user MV/LV substation of a shopping center in Italy, occurred a few years after maintenance works on the electrical installation. The professional engineer who had designed and overseen the construction of the substation was accused of criminal negligence. The authors through the examination of applicable technical standards, as well as of safety regulations, demonstrate that the professional engineer had acted diligently and that there was no ground for the negligence charges. The forensic analysis of the substation fire is provided, and the importance of the chain of custody, the chronological documentation, and the secure storing of all the artefacts and fire-damaged evidence are stressed. The authors believe that this paper can be a useful reference for electrical forensics engineers, investigating similar accidents.

In the first part of the article (�� 1-6), the author deals with the debate about the limits of criminal liability for negligent medical malpractice in a global context characterized by the standardization of clinical practices. The critical consideration of the recent legal reforms in Italy, as well as the prevalent models defended by criminal law scholars, allows the configuration of a paradigm of imputation capable of combining the interests of patients with those of health professionals. In the last part (�� 7-8), the author considers how the same ���balanced��� ���liberal as well as solidaristic��� criterion could allow regulating medical liability for adopting indications provided by Artificial Intelligence systems. The conclusions (�� 9) emphasise how standardisation and automation processes find an insurmountable obstacle in the defence of pluralism, autonomy and the ethics of responsibility., BioLaw Journal - Rivista di BioDiritto, N. 1 (2019)

В статье автор ставит вопрос о видах ответственности врачей. Раскрывается понятие врачебной ошибки. Рассматриваются основания ответственности, основные элементы, квалификация действий врачей. Поднимается вопрос вины. Анализируются возможные последствия, наступающие при допущенных ошибках врачей., In the article the author raises the question of the types of responsibility of doctors. The concept of medical error. Grounds of responsibility. Main elements. The issue of guilt is raised. Qualification of the actions of doctors. Analyzed the possible consequences of the mistakes made by doctors. Qualification issues

The article deals with problem of joint criminal behavior of several subjects in reckless crimes.The author has exposed the genesis of discussion approaches concerning co-operation in domestic and foreign doctrine, as well as examples of co-infliction in crimes in terms of scientific and technological progress, confirmed by judicial practice. He has noted a spread of crimes with signs of co- infliction in the area of traffic, characterized by the guilt of several vehicles’ drivers. He has argued that the criminal law and judicial practice artificially divide these acts into several reckless crimes. Such an approach leads to an objective attitude to accuse one person for the result of criminal negligence behavior of other actors. He has disproved that there is a position in theory and court practice that only one person can be guilty of a road traffic crime.There is the critical analysis of the recommendation of the Supreme Court of Ukraine regarding the practice of courts to apply legislation on road traffic offenses concerning the criminal liability of two or more drivers who have caused an emergency. Taking into account the theory, expert and judicial practice, the author has made the analysis of the concept «emergency situation» as an indication of the objective side of these crimes and its significance for co-infliction.He has concluded that co-infliction in a crime should be regulated by criminal law which in the theoretical and applied aspects requires the definition of: doctrinal principles of the institution of co-infliction; the concept of co-infliction in a crime and its features; forms of reckless co-infliction; types of participants in co-infliction; delimitation of co-infliction from complicity in a crime; peculiarities of criminal liability of subjects of infliction and their punishment; system of rules concerning co-infliction in a crime for introduction into criminal legislation., У статті розглянуто кримінально-правові питання співзаподіяння у злочині. Досліджено ґенезу підходів щодо поняття співзаподіяння та його зв’язку з ученням про співучасть у кримінальному праві. Проаналізовано судову практику, пов’язану із вчиненням необережного співзаподіяння. Окреслено коло питань щодо впровадження співзаподіяння у злочині в чинне кримінальне законодавство.

The article introduces analysis of subjective grounds for guilt – a necessary condition for criminal liability of every person. Guilt is defined as a condemned and punishable by the state culprit’s integral relation (either intentional or through negligence) with the crime or criminal misdemeanour. The article reveals guilt’s connection with general attributes of a criminal act (age, capacity) and puts forward a justification for a state’s right and obligation both in legal and social sense to punish culprits. The article is based on research of application of guilt concept in case-law since the Lithuanian Criminal Code came into force (May 1, 2013). It shows that occasional defects and mistakes occur as unclear, ambiguous conclusions about forms, contents of guilt or as inconsistent characterizations of guilt forms, separate features of its sorts. Also, consequences caused by these mistakes for participants in the criminal process are evaluated. The article also explores provisions of criminal law which determine the concept of guilt. Analysis led to conclusion that reckless guilt in the Criminal Code is defined insufficiently, because it does not provide any description of intellectual reckless guilt (criminal negligence) or is described only partially (criminally false assumption). In justification of negligent guilt in culprit’s criminal act, objective and subjective criteria should be used for both forms of negligence. Also, differences and similarities of criminal negligence and criminally false assumption are presented.

‘Attempted negligence’ is a category of criminal offense that many jurists and philosophers have law have deemed conceptually incoherent. In his Attempts: In the Philosophy of Action and the Criminal Law, Gideon Yaffe challenges this dismissal, anchoring his argument in cases of what he calls ‘mental self-management’ in which agents plan to bring about that they perform unintentional actions at a later time. He plausibly argues that mental self-management-type attempted negligence is possible. However, his account raises the question whether such attempts can be successful: whether, in other words, attempts to perform unintentional actions at a later time could issue in actions that are, indeed, unintentional. Intuitively, at least, it would seem that we should answer in the affirmative. However, that answer poses problems for a plausible and widely-held account of intentional action. Al Mele, responding to Yaffe’s account, has pointed out this problem without, I think, providing a satisfactory resolution. I propose another way of vindicating the possibility of successful attempted negligence with small, if significant, revision to the standard view of intentional action. In these cases, I argue, agents fail to act intentionally because they render themselves, through their acts of self-management, unaware that they are successfully executing their intentions. Moreover, I argue that these agents’ intentions to bring about that they perform unintentional actions do not commit them to acting intentionally because of the nature of intentions to bring about actions. I offer an account of the intention to bring about that one A’s and defend it against some objections.

Lawyers’ knowledge of technology — how to provide counsel with sufficient knowledge to be able to effectively challenge the reliability of those technologies (electronic systems and devices) that produce the most frequently used kinds of evidence, e.g.: electronically produced records; mobile phone tracking evidence; breathalyzer/intoxilyzer devices; and, software programs for discovery’s “technology assisted review” stage. More specifically the problem is collectively made up of these individual problems: (1) lawyers don’t know such evidence-producing technology sufficiently well so as to be able to challenge its performance by effective cross-examination and with their own expert witnesses (if Legal Aid will pay for them). (2) law schools don’t teach courses on the necessary interaction between different kinds of technology and the necessary flexibility of rules of procedure as they should be applied in regard to, electronic discovery, disclosure, preliminary inquiries, and admissibility voir dires. See e.g., R. v. Oland 2015 NBQB 245, and, R. v. Oland 2015 NBQB 244, being two pre-trial voir dires on the admissibility of mobile phone tracking evidence for a 2nd degree murder trial. (3) continuing professional development seminars, conference, (CLE) etc., don’t provide such information about technology; (4) the problem is a moving target, i.e., technology is constantly changing and therefore so will the types of technology that produce the most frequently used kinds of evidence; (5) the huge access to justice (A2J) — unaffordable legal services problem means an ever-increasing number of persons appearing in courts, particularly criminal courts, without lawyers, thus greatly increasing the probability of wrongful convictions and wrongful guilty pleas — such unrepresented persons can’t challenge the complex sources of the evidence used against them; (6) Prosecutors don’t know such technology either, and therefore can’t inform investigating officers what to watch out for and obtain; (7) the police aren’t trained about such technical sources, such that the prosecutor’s duty to disclose, “the fruits of the investigation” that R. v. Stinchcomb 1991 CanLII 45 (SCC, Nov. 7, 1991), requires be disclosed to defence counsel, may be very inadequate, but defence and prosecuting counsel, and their law school professors don’t know what they don't know as to technology; (8) because most of the evidence used in both criminal and civil proceedings now comes from the same sources, most of the great complexity of rules that now burden electronic discovery in civil proceedings, should apply to disclosure in criminal proceedings, but so far, they don’t; (9) lawyers and police officers don’t know about the National Standards of Canada (or the comparable, U.S., DoD’s 5015.2 standard for records management) that establish the required practices and procedures for the proper operation of such technology, such as electronic records managements systems' technology; (10) at a preliminary inquiry, counsel cannot specify whether “committal for trial is in issue,” if the quality of the, manufacturing, use, and maintenance of the technology that produces the prosecution’s evidence is not known; (11) defense counsel needs a constitutional right to a traditional full preliminary inquiry so as to be able to cross-examine witnesses (or demand that witnesses be made available for cross-examination) to learn enough about the technology that produced the evidence to be used by the prosecution at trial; But instead, Bill C-75, Second Reading, June 11, 2018 (in the Canadian Parliament), proposes to restrict the availability of a preliminary inquiry to offences punishable by life imprisonment, and to strengthen the judge’s ability to limit the issues to be explored and the witnesses to be heard, i.e., the proposed amendments would abolish the preliminary inquiry for all but those offences involving a maximum punishment of life imprisonment, which offences range from murder to criminal negligence causing death. Law societies have to formally recognize a “legal research lawyer specialist” for each major area of law, part of whose stock-in-trade would be knowledge of such frequently used, evidence-producing technologies. Such innovation is now necessary so as to make available to all lawyers such knowledge in aid of preparing competent cross-examinations and arguments with which to challenge the reliability of such frequently used sources of evidence, and to argue how the rules of procedure that control proceedings concerning, discovery, disclosure, and admissibility, must be applied flexibly so as to be compatible with constitutional requirements as to "fair trial," and, "an opportunity to make full answer and defense. But, because few law firms would have sufficient volume of production to be able to employ such highly specialized lawyers, they would have to be made available to other lawyers in support services operating at cost. However, law societies have no history of doing either creating specialist legal research lawyers, or support services.

У статті розглянуто кримінально-правові питання співзаподіяння у злочині. Досліджено ґенезу підходів щодо поняття співзаподіяння та його зв’язку з ученням про співучасть у кримінальному праві. Проаналізовано судову практику, пов’язану із вчиненням необережного співзаподіяння. Окреслено коло питань щодо впровадження співзаподіяння у злочині в чинне кримінальне законодавство. The article deals with criminal-legal issues of co-infliction in a crime. The author has studied the genesis of approaches to the notion of co-infliction and its relation to the doctrine of complicity in criminal law. He has analyzed the judicial practice related to reckless co-infliction. He has outlined the scope of matters concerning the introduction of co-infliction in a crime into the current criminal law. В статье рассмотрены уголовно-правовые вопросы сопричинения в преступлении. Исследован генезис подходов относительно понятия сопричинения и его связи сучением о соучастии. Про-анализировано судебную практику, связанную с совершением неосторожного сопричинения. Очерчено круг вопросов, связанных с имплементацией сопричинения в преступлении в действующее уголовное законодательство.

EnglishThe ongoing reforms demonstrate how the so-called “post-modernity” may tend towards the recomposition of a new and worthy system of criminal law. Prison detention must, of course, be drastically contained within absolutely necessary limits. At the same time, the principle of re-education (and humanity) of the punishment must permeate the whole system, imposing to lay down rules that are strictly respondent to the need for the recipient’s effective orientation towards the protected assets and values. It is likewise necessary to assure the complete fulfilment of the principles of offensiveness and individual criminal liability, paying the utmost attention to correctly establishing the structure of the criminal offense in its peculiar ‘substantial components’. According to these fundamental rules of criminal law, punishment should be inflicted on the sole assumption of a really dominable and offensive fact; that is a fact committed with intent and actual (criminal intent) or, at least, potential (criminal negligence) knowledge of its effective contents of social disvalue. italianoLe riforme in divenire dimostrano come la c.d. post-modernita possa tendere in realta verso la ricomposizione di un nuovo e meritevole sistema del diritto penale. Di certo, occorre che la detenzione in carcere sia drasticamente contenuta nei limiti dell’assolutamente necessario; mentre, al contempo, il principio di rieducativita (ed umanita) della pena deve permeare l’intero sistema, imponendo di collegare all’esigenza di un effettivo orientamento del destinatario, verso i beni e i valori tutelati, la posizione di norme conoscibili, nonche la piena realizzazione dei principi di offensivita e di personalita della responsabilita penale, prestando la massima attenzione nel fondare correttamente la struttura dell’illecito penale nelle sue peculiari ‘componenti sostanziali’; irrogando la pena sul solo presupposto di un fatto offensivo realmente dominabile e per cio stesso voluto e rappresentato (dolo) o almeno rappresentabile (colpa) negli effettivi contenuti di disvalore sociale.

One proposed way of preserving the link between criminal negligence and blameworthiness is to define criminal negligence in moral terms. On this view, a person can be held criminally responsible for a negligent act if her negligence reflects a deficit of moral concern. Some theorists are convinced that this definition restores the link between negligence and blameworthiness, while others insist that criminal negligence remains suspect. This article contributes to the discussion by applying the work of ethicist Nomy Arpaly to criminal negligence. Although not interested in legal issues herself, Arpaly has a well-developed theory of moral agency that explains moral concern in terms of responsiveness to moral reasons. Introducing her work to the ongoing scholarly debate will be helpful for two reasons. First, while a definition of negligence in terms of moral concern is recognized as one proposed solution to the negligence–blameworthiness problem, authors promoting it have yet to give a systematic account of...

Several human sciences for special qualities like as human's recognition, heredity or human factors have been wining development in recent years. According to those sciences, today, the one of the science knowledge which nobody as individual could do everything without any errors, attains academic common one. There are two standards for criminal negligence. The negligence is decided based on actual offender's conditions in accordance with standard of an act by an ordinary person when he would have been at the same position of offender. The said science knowledge might have an influence on offender's conditions and the standard as an ordinary person for that decision. Especially, it will become doubtful whether the concept of an ordinary person would keep the position as the above standard in the future. On this papers, the author would like to look for the problem on criminal negligence focusing on an ordinary person who shall be effected by science knowledge. And finally, the author may offer the repeal of slight and usual criminal negligence at least.

Industrial robots have been increasingly used for decades and the International Federation of Robotics predicts that 1.3 million more of such humanoids will be installed in factories across the globe between 2015 and 2018. While robots are deemed beneficial for industrial production, they pose a serious threat to our health and safety. Meanwhile, robots have killed many people and gravely injured numerous others in different countries. Policymakers around the world remain largely unmoved about resolving the uncertainty over the specificity of which persons should go on trial for such killings. This article examines the principles of common law governing manslaughter by criminal negligence with particular reference to Australia; however, it will generally apply to other common law countries as well. It finds that while it would be theoretically possible to identify the potential accused of workplace deaths caused by robots, we consider that the common law identification doctrine in practice will be a bar to successful prosecutions against corporate employers given the specific complexities associated with the usage of industrial robots. This article therefore submits a recommendation with justifications for dealing with this serious offence by enacting appropriate manslaughter law for the effective regulation of robots provoked fatalities.

Статтю присвячено дослідженню особливостей тлумачення протиправних діянь. Проаналізовано сутність злочинного діяння та злочинної бездіяльності. Визначено сутність адміністративного правопорушення. Обґрунтовано правильність та необхід- ність вживання словосполучень “вчинення злочину”, “вчинення правопорушення” замість “скоєння злочину”, “скоєння правопорушення”. The article is devoted to peculiarities of interpretation of wrongful acts. Examines the nature of the crime and the criminal inactivity. It defines the essence of the administrative offence. Reasonably correct and the need of the use of the phrase “committing a crime”, “offence” instead of “commit a crime”, “offense”. Статья посвящена исследованию особенностей толкования противоправных деяний. Проанализированы сущность преступного деяния и преступного бездействия. Определена сущность административного правонарушения. Обосно- ванно правильность и необходимость употребления словосочетаний “совершение преступления”, “совершение правонарушения” вместо “совершения преступления”, “совершение правонарушения”.

Medical profession differentiates itself from other professions, where apart from the knowledge and skill, touch of humanity is also required. Since the inclusion of medical profession under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act there has been a spurt in the number of cases against the doctors. Bolam's test is applied to assess medical negligence of doctor. Cases against the doctors can be brought in a civil or criminal court, and accordingly the negligence may be civil or criminal negligence. In deciding criminal negligence against doctors criminal intent need to be proved. The Medical Law and Ethical Code for medical professional in India are prescribed by Indian Medical Council, under the section 20-A of Indian Medical Council Act of 1956 and Amendment Act No. 24 of 1964.

Agnotology is the study of ignorance —how it is culturally created or condoned, and the purposes it serves in a society. Stanford University professor Robert N. Proctor, a historian of science and technology, coined the word from the Greek agnosis, “not knowing,” and -ology, a subject of study or a branch of knowledge. The term first appeared in popular usage in 2003 in an article in the New York Times. “[A] great deal of attention has been given to epistemology (the study of how we know) when ‘how or why we don’t know’ is often just as important,” say Proctor and Londa Schiebinger in their seminal book Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. These authors have entered a target-rich territory, because the ways in which ignorance is created (agnogenesis) in our society are infinite—through media neglect and obfuscation, corporate or governmental secrecy and suppression, document destruction, myriad forms of cultural and political selectivity, inattention and forgetfulness, outright attempts to deceive and mislead (aka lying), and more. Proctor believes the study of ignorance has life-or-death consequences. This conviction stems from his role in the tobacco controversies in the waning years of the 20th century, in which he was a stern critic of the industry. “The tobacco industry is famous for having seen itself as a manufacturer of two different products, tobacco and doubt,” he asserts. The doubt refers to the tobacco companies' insistence that the science impugning tobacco was pie

Dans cet article, l’auteur se réfère aux tentatives d’application des nouvelles dispositions du Code criminel relativement à l’obligation de ceux qui dirigent l’exécution du travail par autrui, ainsi que les dispositions relatives à la négligence criminelle au sein des organisations. L’auteur relève dans un premier temps que ces nouvelles dispositions du Code criminel comportent un grand potentiel de fonder les accusations de négligence criminelle contre les organisations, ainsi que leurs cadres et agents en matière de santé et sécurité du travail. Cependant, l’auteur constate dans un deuxième temps que malgré l’existence de ces dispositions, la poursuite ne semble pas en profiter pour élargir le cercle des personnes susceptibles d’être poursuivies pour négligence criminelle en milieu de travail. L’auteur est d’avis que compte tenu du sentiment d’intolérance qui anime la société canadienne à l’égard des blessures ou de la mort des travailleurs à la suite de la négligence de leurs employeurs, il serait utile, lorsque les faits s’y prêtent, que la poursuite soit consciente de la nécessité de porter les accusations à l’encontre des organisations et des individus œuvrant pour leur compte afin d’aboutir à un niveau optimal de protection. L’auteur souligne toutefois que malgré la nécessité d’élargir le champ des personnes à poursuivre, les stigmates reliés à une condamnation en vertu du Code criminel exigent que la violation des obligations par celui qui dirige l’exécution du travail soit considérée comme constituant un écart marqué, ou un écart marqué et important (équivalant à une insouciance déréglée ou téméraire à l’égard de la santé ou de la sécurité d’autrui), de la norme de diligence raisonnable., In this paper, the author refers to attempts to apply the new provisions of the Criminal Code concerning the duty of those who have the authority to direct the performance of a work and the new provisions of the Criminal Code related to the criminal negligence liability of an organization. The author notes that the new provisions of the Criminal Code have the great potential to assert criminal negligence prosecutions not only against the organization but also against individuals such as senior officers, supervisors and other representatives. Despite this potential, the author however points out that Crown prosecutors are still reluctant to extend criminal charges to all persons involved in the supervision of the performance of the work. The author holds that given the Canadian society's intolerance to work-related death or injuries due to the lack of care of employers, to broaden the circle of those who may be charged could be a desirable option in order to ensure an optimal level of protection. However, the article stresses that social stigma associated with criminal conviction requires that, to be charged, anyone who owes a duty of care at workplace must depart markedly and substantially from the standard of care reaching the same level of gravity as the wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. If the accused is a legal person, his failure to take preventive measures must only constitute a marked departure from what a reasonably prudent person would have done in similar circumstances.

There has been a tendency for the criminal law to be used primarily as a tool of deterrence in corporate governance. Adopting the Singapore statutory framework as a case study, this paper explores whether we should criminalise directorial negligence in an effort to better secure corporate governance standards. Is it a good idea to brand negligent directors as criminals? If so, what should be the proper standard for criminal negligence? On what grounds, then, might we justify criminalising directorial negligence? This paper explores the merits of various possible rationales which might be mounted in support of criminalisation. It argues that directorial negligence ought not be criminalised, and that the best response to directorial negligence is instead a pecuniary penalty, which combines the punitive aspect of criminal law and the civil response, but which removes the condemnation and stigma associated with the criminal law.

The article is devoted to the actual problem of the subject aspect of the unlawful carrying out of the archaeological explorations, excavations, other earth-moving and submarine works at the object of the archaeological heritage (according to the Criminal Code of Ukraine part 1,Article 298). During carrying out of the analysis of the subject aspect of the given crime such important characteristics of guilt as essence, extent of guilt, form and content of it have been revealed. The possibility of the commitment of a crime specified by the Criminal Code of Ukraine part 1, Article 298 both with the special intent and with the criminal negligence has been given grounds, Рассмотрена субъективная сторона незаконного проведения археологических разведок, раскопок других земельных или подводных работ на объекте археологического наследия (за ч. 1 ст. 298 УК). Раскрыты такие важные характеристики вины, как сущность, степень вины, форма и содержание. Обоснована возможность совершения преступления, предусмотренного ч. 1 ст. 298 УК, как с прямым умыслом, так и с преступной небрежностью, Розглянуто суб’єктивну сторону незаконного проведення археологічних розвідок, розкопок, інших земляних чи підводних робіт на об’єкті археологічної спадщини (за ч. 1 ст. 298 КК). Розкрито такі важливі характеристики вини, як її сутність, ступінь, форма і зміст. Обґрунтовано можливість вчинення злочину, передбаченого ч. 1 ст. 298 КК як з прямим умислом, так і зі злочинною недбалістю

The article is devoted to the actual problem of the subject aspect of the unlawful carrying out of the archaeological explorations, excavations, other earth-moving and submarine works at the object of the archaeological heritage (according to the Criminal Code of Ukraine part 1,Article 298). During carrying out of the analysis of the subject aspect of the given crime such important characteristics of guilt as essence, extent of guilt, form and content of it have been revealed. The possibility of the commitment of a crime specified by the Criminal Code of Ukraine part 1, Article 298 both with the special intent and with the criminal negligence has been given grounds

The issue of medical negligence has been catching attention of many people nowadays. With advancement of technology in medical field, many incurable diseases of past time can now be managed well at the cost of burdening expenditure. This has resulted in obvious expectations to the patient and their families that any ailment can be cured from the medical procedures and therapies. When these expectations are not met in terms of complications or death of the near ones, people get frustrated and tend to allege health care providers against medically negligent.Negligence are of two types; civil negligence where the doctors are alleged to have lost simple degree of care and attention to the patients thereby causing damage whereas in criminal negligence, the doctors grossly deviate from the standard of care and competence or perform activities which are understood prima facie as a crime, for eg: performing criminal abortion, organ transplantation against the law etc.Whatever the type of negligence, there are legal measures to file complaint against the doctors who are alleged to have caused negligence. Gone are the days when people regarded doctors near to gods. Medical service also falls under the consumer protection act where the patients are the consumers and medical personnel, the service providers. The patients have rights to get quality medical service under this act. If the patients or their relatives are dissatisfied with the medical service rendered to them by the health care providers, they have the right to lodge complaint to the compensation committee of the district in which chief district officer (CDO) is the chairman in each district. If there is an issue of criminal negligence, the complaint can also be filed in the concerned court.In some circumstances, when the patient develops complications or dies, the attendants accuse the doctors for the failure in treatment and protest in the hospital premises rather than opting the legal way of charging them against negligence. The health professionals are at times threatened and forced to apologize in public. Most of the times, they demand for compensation and many direct benefits to the relatives of the deceased. The hospitals and the health professionals feel insecure and often they have agreed to the demands put forth to peacefully settle the issue and to get prevented from defamation. The government is also unable to provide security. Similar cases have been reported time and again in Nepal, creating a sense of lawlessness in the country.When deciding whether a doctor is held liable for negligence, the “standard of care” should be analysed. It means the practice should be an accepted one and standard, such that doctor of the similar filed and competence would have also opted the same procedure in given circumstances. Even when a doctor has duly acted opting standard procedure, still there can be chances that a patient can develop complications. Every human body cannot react exactly same to a medical intervention though that may be a scientifically proven one as there can be chances of medical misadventure. The doctors should have possessed reasonable degree of care and skill when he is attending the patient. According to Bolam’s test, a person is said to have inappropriate standard, and becomes negligent, if it is proven that he had failed to do what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances.1 The degree of care and skill should be comparable to an average doctor in similar settings. In order to analyse these issues, expert opinion from reputable and unbiased experts of the similar field of medicine should be taken. In case of death due to alleged medical negligence, the dead body should be autopsied by qualified experts in Forensic Medicine. This can explain so many facts about the deceased which can be helpful to decide whether negligence has factually taken. It highlights the need of taking opinion from the experts of the concerned field by the councils framed to settle the cases of medical negligence, especially the consumer protection council, Nepal Medical Council, etc.It is a high time for the government to play role to address to this sensitive and quai-legal issue. If this trend is not ended, the trust of patients towards the doctors may nullify. The doctors also cannot work effectively when there is no safe working environment and may begin to have tendency to abandon handling critical cases with a fear of vulnerability to defamation if not physical assault in worst case. The situation is ultimately disastrous to the entire health care system. The very sensitive issue of health care delivery cannot be compared to any other commercial issues. The proper mechanism of addressing the issue of medical negligence should be practiced alongside encouragement from governmental urge to come up with better medicolegal systems in this regard. This is highly essential for balancing expectations of the patients and performance of medical professionals.

논문투고일：2011년 05월 21일 논문수정완료일：2011년 08월 21일 논문게재확정일：2011년 09월 06일* 연세대학교 정보대학원 교수The recently revised “Telecommunications Business Promotion and Personal Data Protection Act” is an important legal milestone in promoting the Korean telecommunications infrastructure and industry as well as protecting individuals’ personal data and individuals’ rights to privacy. Special characteristics of information security and privacy protection services including public goods’ feature, adaptivene ss, relativity, multi-dimensionality, and incompleteness, are reviewed. The responsibility of chief security/privacy offi cers in the IT industry, and the fairness and effectiveness of the criminal negligence in the Telecommunications Act are an alyzed. An assessment of the rationale behind the act as well as a survey of related laws and cases in different countries, offers the following recommendations：i) revise the act and develop new systems for data protection, ii) grant a stay of execution or reduce the sentence given extenuating circumstances, or iii) use technical and mana gerial measures in data protection for exemption from criminal negligence.