Search

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.

The Department of Health estimates that 10% of hospital inpatient admissions result in an adverse event, but ,2% of claims for medical negligence handled by the NHS Litigation Authority result in court action. However, both the number of claims for negligence and the sums involved in settlement are increasing and so it is important that anaesthetists understand the factors leading to a possible civil claim for negligence and the potentially considerably more serious charge of criminal negligence, both of which can arise from failures to uphold a suitable standard of care. This article does not consider claims of negligence in relation to consent which has been considered in a separate article in the journal. The principle of ‘duty of care’ was established by Donoghue v Stevenson in 1932 wherein Lord Atkin identified that there was a general duty to take reasonable care to avoid forseeable injury to a ‘neighbour’. In this case, a woman in Paisley drank ginger beer from a bottle until she found a decomposing snail at the bottom. As a result the woman became ill and a case was brought against the ginger beer manufacturers for compensation. Lord Atkin determined that the company producing the ginger beer had been negligent in failing to ensure the woman’s safety during the production process, even though the ginger beer was not bought by the woman but by her friend. It was established that a general duty of care was owed to a neighbour; a neighbour was defined as ‘someone who may be reasonably contemplated as closely and directly affected by an act’. In this case, it did not matter who had bought the ginger beer, since it was reasonable to consider that anyone who drank the beer would have suffered the same consequences and could therefore be considered under the ‘neighbour’ principle.

The doctrine of informed consent forms an integral part of any doctor-patient relationship. It serves two-fold as it develops trust and confidence in the patient for the doctor after being told about the plan of action; conversely the doctor can carry out planned medical interventions in a more composed manner, being confident in the protection of this doctrine if anything untoward occurs. Informed consent gives a blanket shield against compensation and criminal negligence charges filed by patients if the doctor has not deviated from standard practices of treatment or intervention or if no evidence of mal intention is forthcoming. Informed consent is applicable in most of the treatment modalities in which any intervention/invasive procedure is to be done or if any risk of complication is well known or documented. Surprisingly, even when serious life threatening complications are not only reported but on a steady rise due to vaccines, informed consent in vaccination is neither in vogue nor practice. Even in the US, there is no federal requirement for informed consent before vaccination, even though National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and the Vaccine Compensation Amendments are in place. This paper attempts to present an overall comment on the necessity of informed consent before any vaccination especially in the Indian context in the backdrop of the beginning of vaccine compensation claims and litigation against the complications of vaccination in India.

Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2005) Case, Supreme Court said that the jurisprudential concept of negligence differs in civil and criminal law. What may be negligence in civil law may not necessarily be negligence in criminal law. For negligence to amount to an offence, the element of mens rea must be shown to exist. For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher i.e. gross or of a very high degree. Negligence which is neither gross nor of a higher degree may provide a ground for action in civil law but cannot form the basis for prosecution. The husband of the first respondent (one Divakar) approached the appellant herein, complaining of a pain in the chest on 22.04.2002. On 25.04.2002, the appellant unsuccessfully attempted to perform an angioplasty on Divakar. Same day at around 3.30 p.m., by-pass surgery was conducted on Divakar in the same hospital. Subsequently, various complications developed and eventually Divakar died on 09.05.2002. On 14.05.2002, the first respondent lodged a complaint against the appellant and others under section 304A IPC. The Ld. Magistrate by his order dated 11.12.2006 came to the prima facie conclusion that there exists material to try the accused for the offence punishable under section 304A IPC. Andhra Pradesh High Court opined that the material on record “clearly shows negligence on the part of Appeallant” and declined to quash the proceedings. Later Supreme Court set aside the judgment under appeal and also the proceedings of the trial court dated 11.12.2006.

In October 2003, US citizen Christina Thomas died while scuba diving on Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef. Following over five years of delays, her husband David Watson accepted a plea bargain to which he pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis of criminal negligence. Watson was initially sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment, suspended after 12 months, however this was later increased on appeal to suspension after 18 months. Using Watson as a framework for analysis, this article examines some of the limitations of an inefficient justice system, with a particular focus on the private nature of the plea bargaining process, and the potentially favourable representations and sentencing of men who kill a female intimate partner. The authors argue that the need to respond to court inefficiency and under-resourcing in the criminal courts creates pressures that can result in a desire for increased efficiency being prioritised above other justice concerns, and this allows for existing flaws within the operation of the criminal justice system to be exacerbated, and excused.

I join the chorus of congratulations for Larry Alexander, Kim Ferzan, and Stephen Morse for the contributions their book makes to our understanding of the criminal law.1 The book seeks to achieve nothing less than a comprehensive theory of the crime and punishment, one that tries to reorient the thinking of scholars and policy makers toward a single theory of justice based on blameworthiness and retribution. Regardless of whether we are ultimately convinced by the conclusions, we can all admire the scholarly ambition and risk-taking the project requires, and appreciate the many insights the authors provide. I learned a lot from this book; it both advanced and unsettled my prior thinking on a whole range of topics. But ultimately the book failed to persuade me. I remain far from certain that a single theory can explain the criminal law; more doubtful than ever that, even if a single theory is possible, retributive theory is the right tool for the job; and skeptical that a unified theory is even desirable. Doing justice to the authors' larger thesis would require a review as long as the book, so my goals here are modest. In the next few pages I will address the authors' critical corollary claim that negligence does not form an appropriate basis for criminal liability, and explain why I think it is wrong, at least as a matter of first principles. I then raise some questions about the proposed practical application of the theory to a revised

In a typical scene from the 1960s retro television series Mad Men, a mother watches her children putting plastic bags from the drycleaners over their heads, chastising them... for messing up the clothes inside. This, as one critic notes, is one of those 'retrospective winks at past ignorance' that make Mad Men 'so funny and, at times, so chilling'.1 The joke is premised on a measurable national shift in knowledge about the dangers of allowing children to play with dry cleaning bags. Perceptions of risk both shape and are shaped by the criminal law. Risks that were unknown or underestimated at one time (for example, certain vehicular risks) now give rise to criminal liability.2 The criminal law reflects knowledge of risk and assessments of what risks are reasonable. At the same time, criminal sanctions communicate norms and educate the public about blameworthy risk-taking.

Health-care professionals who make serious errors may be subject to criminal prosecution for criminal negligence. In recent years, many states have expanded the concept of criminal negligence to the extent that health-care providers may have difficulty fully understanding what conduct could subject them to criminal prosecution.This article presents two cases in which nurses were prosecuted for criminal negligence related to medication errors. It explores the evolving concept of criminal negligence, discusses the role of systemic and interdisciplinary factors in medical errors, and explores the collateral consequences of criminal prosecution.

A mother from Calgary whose son died after she attempted to treat his strep throat at home with dandelion tea and oil of oregano has been sentenced to three years in prison for criminal negligence causing death. Tamara Lovett, 48, a believer in holistic medicine, did not call a doctor when her 7 year old son Ryan developed a throat infection, only calling an ambulance after two weeks of illness when she found him collapsed on the floor. He was pronounced …

Health systems in developing countries are weak and fractured. There is endemic lack of accountability and poor legislative controls over health delivery. Health budgets are paltry with criminal negligence of health and education sectors since inception of many of these nations. There are misplaced priorities in resource allocation. Wars, regional conflicts manmade and natural disasters have pushed these civilizations further back in time. Lack of cohesion in health infrastructures reflects a major failure by policy makers and managers.

Thus criminal justice tells us where the moral boundaries are, where the line lies between good and bad. It patrols those boundary lines, day and night, rain or shine. It shows the rules directly, dramatically, visually through asserting and enforcing them. (There are lessons from non-enforcement, too: from situations where the boundaries are indistinct, or the patrol corrupt or asleep; and society is quick to learn these lessons, too.) Lawrence M. Friedman, Crime and Punishment in American History White Collar Neglect American law provides federal and state prosecutors with powerful authority to charge individuals and corporations with crimes and to win, but they rarely pursue such cases. This paradox is especially poignant with respect to criminality that kills or injures workers or consumers, or that causes irretrievable damage to natural resources. Prosecutors have largely turned a blind eye to such violations, depending instead on a broken regulatory system to deter illegal behavior. To be sure, some of the criminal statutes that apply to health and safety offenses treat them lightly: purveyors of tainted food or grossly negligent employers face misdemeanor charges providing for prison terms of a year or less. Rather than working to develop cases that overcome these weaknesses by, for example, charging multiple violations that add up to significant jail time, prosecutors have largely abandoned those fields. One conundrum running throughout the field of neglected criminal enforcement is whether to charge corporations or their employees. The decision is admittedly complex, but forgoing enforcement altogether should not be a third and favored option. As a matter of principle, corporations should be subject to prosecution when the violations were endemic to the corporate structure, as opposed to the brainchild of isolated, rogue employees. Individuals can and should be charged alongside their corporate employers, providing a different kind of deterrent to future malfeasance.

In June of 2009, Michael Jackson died following a cardiac arrest. Jackson suffered from severe insomnia and anxiety, and Dr. Conrad Murray, a physician hired to look after Jackson’s medical needs during preparations for a major world tour, had apparently undertaken to treat Jackson’s insomnia in his home using a drug with known deadly potential: propofol. This is not a pediatric case, nor is it even typical in cases of medical negligence. But the Michael Jackson case illustrates many issues concerning legal standards with regard to negligence when it results in a patient death and practice standards with regard to sedation, professionalism, and the ethical obligations of physicians. In this chapter, we will undertake to discuss the Jackson case from both legal and professional perspectives, and then to compare elements of the Jackson case with that of another case of sedation that also ended in patient death, but not in criminal charges of homicide.

Criminal enforcement of environmental laws has evolved rapidly in the past few years. Recent environmental prosecutions have targeted subtle conduct in innovative and aggressive ways by using expansive theories of liability beyond those contained in environmental statutes. Prosecutions for criminal negligence also are becoming more common. Because of aggressive federal and state efforts targeting environmental crimes, it is time for companies to take a hard look at their corporate policies and environmental compliance records to help ensure that they do not become a target of a criminal prosecution. This paper will review recent criminal environmental cases and discuss ways in which companies can best protect themselves and prepare for an environmental criminal investigation of their companies, officers, and employees.

On 26 December 1978 one arm of a fairground machine known as the `Concorde Flyer' installed at the Kelvin Hall, Glasgow, Scotland, fractured due to fatigue. The car attached to the arm overturned, killing two passengers. A description of the events leading up to the accident, and the cause of the failure, are taken from the report of an official inquiry. After the event the immediate cause of the accident became obvious and it is easy to see how it could have been prevented. There were no prosecutions for criminal negligence, and the question of civil liability for damages appears to have been settled out of court.

This article addresses the contention of some prominent criminal law scholars – notably Jerome Hall and Glanville Williams – that negligence is an improper basis for the imposition of criminal punishment. An Aristotelian, virtue-ethics theory of punishment treats the inculcation of sound practical judgment as a function of punishment. The assessment of reasonable conduct implicit in negligence as a criterion of criminal fault fits comfortably within such a theory.

The purpose of this paper is to examine issues of regulation of the market for, and use of, blood and blood products. The situation has changed since the discovery of the Human Immune Deficiency Virus (HIV), the presumed cause of AIDS, because it was recognized that some haemophiliacs were infected with HIV from transfused blood and blood products before 1985. When the danger was realized in that year, regulations were introduced internationally to prevent this, but meanwhile some haemophiliacs developed AIDS. In several countries, governments have accepted responsibility, without liability, for possible transmission of infection, and paid compensation to victims. In Prance three health service officials have been convicted of fraud and criminal negligence. In March 1997 a trial began in Japan of three drugs company executives accused of promoting the sale of HIV-contaminated blood products. Since then there has been a class action in the USA resulting in awards. Further issues have arisen with regard to the outcome and treatment of asymptomatic infection with HIV. The implications for public safety, and for medical and legal practice, are far reaching and reveal a need for more effective monitoring of the existing procedures for supply and clinical use of blood and blood products.

Medical engineering plays important role in current medical care system, Whereas, legal aspect of incidents in clinical instrument operation have not been analyzed. This paper describes legal aspect of medical malpractice and negligence in medical instrument operation. Based on a case of incident that was concerned with a clinical engineer of a hospital, problems were analyzed from legal point of view.

Straipsnyje nagrinėjama viena iš aktualesnių, bet, deja, labai retai literatūroje minimų problemų – baudžiamosios atsakomybės taikymo už neatsargiai padarytas nusikalstamas veikas, Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamajame kodekse (toliau – BK) aprašytas formalia sudėtimi, problema. Prieinama prie išvados, kad jos kilimą suponuoja atsakomybės už neatsargiai daromas veikas kilimo principinės nuostatos ir šiuo metu esantis neatsargios kaltės reglamentavimas baudžiamajame įstatyme. BK specialiosios dalies poreikius tenkinančio pagrindimo nerandant BK bendrojoje dalyje – kaltės formas ir jų turinį reglamentuojančiose normose – kyla BK vidinis prieštaringumas. Taip pat šios problemos aktualumą rodo Europos Sąjungos teisinės priemonės, susijusios su materialine baudžiamąja teise, kurių nuostatų įgyvendinimas Lietuvos nacionalinėje teisėje atsižvelgiant į BK 16 straipsnį kelia nemažai sunkumų. Negligence is recognised and consolidated in the majority of national criminal laws as one of the fault forms. Lithuania is not an exception, since Article 16 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter referred to as ‘CC’) defines negligent fault through the concepts of recklessness and criminal negligence. It should be noted that so far in the literature on criminal legislation it has been stated unanimously that the liability model for committed negligent criminal acts is based on the fact of originating dangerous consequences stipulated in the Criminal Law. Thus, when supporting a person’s criminal liability for committed negligent criminal acts, the emergence of consequences specified by the Criminal Law plays its central role. However, it is important to note that the analysis of the content of special provisions of the CC, establishing negligent fault, allows seeing that they are constructed by the legislature as a part of formal criminal offences. Thus, one of the main problems currently arising not only at national but also at the European Union level is the interaction between negligent fault and formal offence formations. The origin of this problem stems from legal regulation stipulated in Article 16 of the CC, when negligent fault is revealed through mental relationship with an act, development of causation and originating consequences. The article deals with some key issues, namely the content of negligence to be proved, if the constituent elements are considered to be formal. In addition, given the fact that criminal law is not formal law, the author examines the circumstances that may testify sufficient level of hazard for the emergence of criminal liability. In response to the concerns raised, the paper concludes that in order to avoid formal application of criminal liability for committing negligent criminal acts described in formal composition, the possibly originating harmful consequences can be considered as one of the possible hazard assessment criteria. Although dangerous consequences are not included in the formal configurations, according to the author, their assessment has an implication on determining the gravity of offences and, therefore, the justification of application of criminal law.

Regulatory offences enacted in provincial statutes represent a large part of the law that is confronted by citizens, and a significant proportion of the cases prosecuted in court. There is a tendency to view them as being distinctly different and less serious than criminal offences that are embodied in the Criminal Code. This paper argues that it is preferable to view them as running along a continuum. The same actus reus can represent a minor infraction that is properly prosecuted as a strict liability offence with a modest fine, while in other instances it rises to the level of an act that causes serious harm and is morally culpable. The statutory regime should be designed to provide the proper guidance so that, where appropriate, prosecutors look for mens rea and seek larger penalties with an aim of deterrence similar to that of criminal offences. A number of examples suggest that the failure of legislation to clearly address these issues has undermined enforcement efforts and obscured the seriousness of some of these offences.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES In this chapter, you will: ➔ Distinguish between the two sources of law in Australia: statutory law and common law ➔ Gain an understanding of the hierarchy of the courts in Australia's legal system ➔ Gain an understanding of the difference between criminal and civil law and how each relates to nursing practice ➔ Gain an understanding of the importance for nurses of gaining knowledge of the law and the legal system The Australian legal system is complex. An illustration of its complexity can be seen in the protracted and controversial case of Dr Jayant Patel, a surgeon who had been working at the Bundaberg Base Hospital in Queensland. In 2010, following a commission of inquiry by the Queensland Government, and after being extradited from the United States, an action of criminal negligence was brought against Dr Patel under the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). Although the legal action was initially successful, and Patel was found guilty on three counts of manslaughter and one count of grievous bodily harm, the case for the prosecution was not straightforward. Section 288 of the Criminal Code 1899 states that: ‘It is the duty of every person who … undertakes to administer surgical … treatment to any other person, or to do any other lawful act which is or may be dangerous to human life or health, to have reasonable skill and to use reasonable care in doing such act.’ Patel was found to have operated with appropriate skill and care. Jurors, therefore, were required to find that Patel's decision to operate showed ‘such a great falling short of the standard to have been expected of a surgeon, and showing such serious disregard for the patient's welfare … was so thoroughly reprehensible, involving such grave moral guilt, that it should be treated as a crime deserving of punishment’ (R v Patel [2010] QSC 233 [69]). Patel's convictions depended upon an interpretation of section 288 by Justice Byrne: Take a surgeon who performs a minor surgical procedure with consent. During the operation, in circumstances bespeaking criminal negligence, the surgeon lets the knife slip, wounding the patient. The surgeon will have breached the s 288 duty and be guilty of unlawful wounding.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES In this chapter, you will: Develop an understanding of the concepts of ‘duty of care’ and ‘standard of care’ Learn how a nurse's ‘scope of practice’ is determined Learn how a nurse's actions or omissions may be determined to be negligent Learn how to avoid acting negligently Gain an understanding of vicarious liability and professional indemnity Two ambulance officers attended a collapsed, unconscious person. Following ambulance protocol, a dose of intravenous adrenaline was administered. The person remained unresponsive. A second dose of adrenaline was administered, as per the ambulance protocol. Consequently, the person suffered a cerebral bleed as a result of high blood pressure induced by the adrenaline. The ambulance officer was initially found to be negligent, but the finding was overturned on appeal. The appeal judge determined that, by following ambulance protocol, the ambulance officer did provide a reasonable standard of care, and that the harm suffered by the person was not the result of a breach of duty of care. (Eburn 2007) DUTY OF CARE Chapter 4 noted that nurses have a duty of care towards their patients. Duty of care refers to the legal obligation on a professional to exercise reasonable care and skill in the provision of professional treatment: a person comes under a duty of care in relation to the provision of advice or information if he carries on a business or profession and in the course of it provides advice or information of a kind which calls for skill and competence or otherwise professes to possess skill and competence and he provides advice or information when he knows or ought to know that the recipient intends to act or rely on it. (Mason J in Shaddock & Associates v Parramatta City Council (1981) 150 CLR 225 at 248–9)

In this article we analyze the concepts of ‘norm’ and ‘wrong’ that better serve theaims of Criminal Law. The author defends that it is more precise to break in to two parts the concept of ‘the contrary to the norm’, attaching to the concept of ‘wrong’ the mere objective contradiction of the act with the content of the determinating norm (promulgated norm), which leaves ‘culpability’ the problem of “individual communication”. As a result, the concept of ‘wrong’ collaborates with the joint aim of protecting legally protected interests through positive general prevention in its original use, since the concept attempts to transmit the general valuations of the conduct and the legally protected interests that would be lost when introducing the ‘categoryof wrong’ the considerations relative to the individual capacity to act according tothose general parameters.Thus the author rejects the constructions that currently defend the individualization of the due care to the scope of the concept of ‘wrong’, or because they assume that the concept of ‘wrong’ as an infraction of the vigilence of the norm, or, in othercases, because, in spite of conceiving the concept of ‘wrong’ as an infraction of a determination norm, they include in the concept of ‘wrong’ certain requirements of the norm-communication. All of them have an inadmissible derogation of the general norms of conduct in criminal negligence and the loss of the positive general preventive function of the ‘category of wrong.’ En el presente artículo se analizan los conceptos de norma y de injusto que mejor sirven a los fines del Derecho penal. Así se defiende que es preciso dividir la antinormatividad completa en fragmentos, correspondiendo a lo injusto la mera contradicción objetiva de la conducta con el contenido de la norma de determinación (norma promulgada), dejando para la culpabilidad los problemas de “comunicación” individual. De esta manera la categoría de lo injusto colabora al fin conjunto de protección de bienes jurídicos a través de la prevención general positiva en su sentido original. La contrariedad objetiva con la norma promulgada (con el contenido de la norma dedeterminación) se destaca como categoría que cumple la función de trasladar las valoraciones generales sobre la conducta y sobre el bien jurídico que se perderían al introducir en lo injusto consideraciones relativas a la capacidad individual de actuar conforme a esos parámetros generales.Por ello se rechazan las construcciones que defienden una individualización del injusto como infracción de la vigencia de la norma, donde el concepto de infracción consiste en un proceso de imputación en el que se indaga acerca de si el comportamiento del autor expresa un no reconocimiento personal de la norma, o fórmulas similares, que hacen depender lo injusto no solo de la contradicción objetiva del contenido de la norma, como yo he defendido, sino de expresiones o faltas personales en relación con la misma, o bien, en otras construcciones, porque, a pesar de concebir lo injusto como la infracción de una norma de determinación incluyen en el concepto de injusto determinados requisitos de la norma-comunicación. Todas ellas llevan a una inadmisible derogación de las normas de conducta generales en el delito imprudente y a la pérdida de la función preventivo general positiva de la categoría de lo injusto.