Most people believe that they must intend to commit a crime in order to be prosecuted for an offense, but in reality, intent is only one of three forms of mens rea, or “guilty mind”. When intent can’t be proven, or doesn’t exist, prosecutors can pursue criminal recklessness or criminal negligence instead. And although negligence is considered the least serious of the three forms of culpability, it certainly doesn’t excuse whatever the defendant has done to warrant prosecution.
The California Criminal Defense blog, for example, discusses criminal negligence in association with the tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo. Published by Neil Shouse & Associates, the January 22 entry defines criminal negligence as “when a property owner or responsible person fails to uphold a standard of care to a person to whom they owe a duty of care, causing that person harm or death”. In order to understand this concept, you must first comprehend every aspect of that definition.
Property Owner or Responsible Person
“Responsible” is the key word here in terms of criminal negligence, because negligence can’t be proven without some level of responsibility. For example, in the San Francisco Zoo attacks, the owners of the zoo and perhaps the people in charge of the tigers might be held responsible, but the guy who works the hot dog stand could not. In order to prove this aspect of law, responsibility must be proven before all else. A parent can be negligent in taking care of his child; a teacher could be negligent in caring for his students – the list goes on.
Standard of Care
This is one of the most subjective parts of criminal negligence, as just about everyone could have a different idea of what “standard of care” should apply to a given situation. What legal obligation does one person or entity have to maintain a standard of care, and to what standard should he or she be measured? Generally speaking, the courts use a “reasonable person” standard to clarify these matters – in other words, what would a reasonable man or woman do in a given situation?
Should the care fall below the acceptable standard-outlined either by the courts or by a third party-then the offending party may be charged with criminal negligence. Of course, the prosecutor must be able to establish all of the other requirements in order to meet their burden of proof.
Duty of Care
With this aspect of criminal negligence, we’re back to the concept of responsibility. In order to prove such a case, it must be established that the offending party had a reasonable responsibility to provide a certain level of care for the victim.
Wikipedia uses the example of drivers on the road to explain duty of care. When you get into an automobile, you have the duty to drive safely and with regard to other drivers. If you drive without concern for the safety of others, and you injure someone in the process, you might be found guilty of criminal negligence.
Causing Harm or Injury
The final piece in the criminal negligence puzzle is harm or injury, which must be caused in order for the prosecutor (or plaintiff, in a civil suit) to make a case. You disregard for the safety and well-being of others must result in injury or some other negative repercussion, and it must be proven that your negligence was the direct or contributing cause.
Obviously, negligence isn’t something that can easily be proven, and defendants often escape prosecution because one or more of the preceding components is not present in the case.
Sources:
Neil Shouse & Associates, San Francisco Zoo Highlights Question of Criminal Negligence, California Criminal Defense blog
Wikipedia.org, Duty of Care
