edited by Findlay Stark
The question of when a person is culpable for
taking an unjustified risk of harm has long been controversial in
Anglo-American criminal law doctrine and theory. This survey of the approaches
adopted in England and Wales, Canada, Australia, the United States, New Zealand
and Scotland argues that they are converging, to differing extents, around a
'Standard Account' of culpable unjustified risk-taking. This Standard Account
distinguishes between awareness-based culpability (recklessness) and
inadvertence-based culpability (negligence) for unjustified risk-taking. With
reference to criminal law theory and philosophical literature, the author
argues that, when explained appropriately, the Standard Account is defensible
and practical. Defending the Standard Account involves analysing in depth a
number of controversial matters, including the meaning of advertence/awareness,
the role of attitudes such as indifference in culpable risk-taking, and the
question of whether negligence should be used in the criminal law.