title: Criminal negligence
text: # Criminal negligence
  
  Criminal law :
  
  Elements :
  
  Actus reus
  
  Mens rea
  
  Causation
  
  Concurrence :
  
  Scope of criminal liability :
  
  Accessory
  
  Accomplice
  
  Complicity
  
  Corporate
  
  Principal
  
  Vicarious :
  
  Severity of offense :
  
  Felony
  
  Infraction (also called violation)
  
  Misdemeanor :
  
  Inchoate offenses :
  
  Attempt
  
  Conspiracy
  
  Incitement
  
  Solicitation :
  
  Offences against the person :
  
  Sexual offenses :
  
  Adultery
  
  Bigamy
  
  Child sexual abuse
  
  Cybersex trafficking
  
  Fornication
  
  Homosexuality
  
  Incest
  
  Indecent exposure
  
  Masturbation
  
  Obscenity
  
  Prostitution
  
  Rape
  
  Sex trafficking
  
  Sexual assault
  
  Sexual slavery
  
  Voyeurism :
  
  Crimes against property :
  
  Arson
  
  Arms trafficking
  
  Blackmail
  
  Bribery
  
  Burglary
  
  Embezzlement
  
  Extortion
  
  False pretenses
  
  Forgery
  
  Fraud
  
  Gambling
  
  Intellectual property violation
  
  Larceny
  
  Payola
  
  Pickpocketing
  
  Possessing stolen property
  
  Robbery
  
  Smuggling
  
  Tax evasion
  
  Theft
  
  Trespass to land
  
  Vandalism, Mischief :
  
  Crimes against justice :
  
  Compounding
  
  Malfeasance in office
  
  Miscarriage of justice
  
  Misprision
  
  Obstruction
  
  Perjury
  
  Perverting the course of justice :
  
  Crimes against the public :
  
  Apostasy
  
  Begging
  
  Censorship violation
  
  Dueling
  
  Genocide
  
  Hostage-taking
  
  Illegal consumption (such as prohibition of drugs, alcohol, and smoking)
  
  Miscegenation
  
  Piracy
  
  Terrorism
  
  Usurpation
  
  War crimes :
  
  Crimes against animals :
  
  Cruelty to animals
  
  Wildlife smuggling
  
  Bestiality :
  
  Crimes against the state :
  
  Lèse-majesté
  
  Treason
  
  Espionage
  
  Secession
  
  Sedition
  
  Subversion :
  
  Defences to liability :
  
  Automatism
  
  Consent
  
  Defence of property
  
  Diminished responsibility
  
  Duress
  
  Entrapment
  
  Ignorantia juris non excusat
  
  Infancy
  
  Insanity
  
  Justification
  
  Mistake (of law)
  
  Necessity
  
  Provocation
  
  Self-defence :
  
  Other common-law areas :
  
  Contracts
  
  Evidence
  
  Property
  
  Torts
  
  Wills, trusts and estates :
  
  Portals :
  
  Law :
  
  vte :
  
  In criminal law, criminal negligence is an offence that involves a breach of an objective standard of behaviour expected of a defendant. It may be contrasted with strictly liable offences, which do not consider states of mind in determining criminal liability, or offenses that requires mens rea, a mental state of guilt.
  
  ## Concept
  
  To constitute a crime, there must be an actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") accompanied by the mens rea (see concurrence). Negligence shows the least level of culpability, intention being the most serious, and recklessness being of intermediate seriousness, overlapping with gross negligence. The distinction between recklessness and criminal negligence lies in the presence or absence of foresight as to the prohibited consequences. Recklessness is usually described as a "malfeasance" where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being willing to run the risk. But criminal negligence is a "misfeasance" or "nonfeasance" (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. In some cases this failure can rise to the level of willful blindness, where the individual intentionally avoids adverting to the reality of a situation. (In the United States, there may sometimes be a slightly different interpretation for willful blindness.) The degree of culpability is determined by applying a reasonable-person standard. Criminal negligence becomes "gross" when the failure to foresee involves a "wanton disregard for human life" (see the definitions of corporate manslaughter and in many common law jurisdictions of gross negligence manslaughter).
  
  The test of any mens rea element is always based on an assessment of whether the accused had foresight of the prohibited consequences and desired to cause those consequences to occur. The three types of test are:
  
  * subjective where the court attempts to establish what the accused was actually thinking at the time the actus reus was caused;
  * objective where the court imputes mens rea elements on the basis that a reasonable person with the same general knowledge and abilities as the accused would have had those elements; or
  * hybrid, i.e., the test is both subjective and objective.
  
  The most culpable mens rea elements will have both foresight and desire on a subjective basis. Negligence arises when, on a subjective test, an accused has not actually foreseen the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, and has gone ahead, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim to the risk of suffering injury or loss. The accused is a social danger because they have endangered the safety of others in circumstances where the reasonable person would have foreseen the injury and taken preventive measures. Hence, the test is hybrid.
  
  ## Reasonable person standard
  
  "Reasonable person standard" does not pertain to a real person, but rather a legal fiction. It is an objective yardstick against which to measure the culpability of real people. For these purposes, the reasonable person is not an average person: this is not a democratic measure. To determine the appropriate level of responsibility, the test of reasonableness has to be directly relevant to the activities being undertaken by the accused. What the "average person" thinks or might do would be irrelevant in a case where a doctor is accused of wrongfully killing a patient during treatment. Hence, there is a baseline of minimum competence that all are expected to meet. This reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. This standard can never go down, but it can go up to match the training and abilities of the particular accused. In testing whether the particular doctor has misdiagnosed a patient so incompetently that it amounts to a crime, the standard must be that of a reasonable doctor. Those who hold themselves out as having particular skills must match the level of performance expected of people with comparable skills. When engaged in an activity outside their expertise, such individuals revert to the ordinary person standard. This is not to deny that ordinary people might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but the ordinary person as an accused will not be at fault if they do not do that extraordinary thing so long as whatever that person does or thinks is reasonable in those circumstances.
  
  The more contentious debate has surrounded the issue of whether the reasonable person should be subjectively matched to the accused in cases involving children, and persons with a physical or mental disability. Young and inexperienced individuals may not foresee what an adult might foresee, a blind person cannot see at all, and an autistic person may not relate to the world as a non autistic person. Cases involving infancy and mental disorders as an insanity defense potentially invoke excuses to criminal liability because the accused lack full capacity, and criminal systems provide an overlapping set of provisions which can either deal with such individuals outside the criminal justice system, or if a criminal trial is unavoidable, mitigate the extent of liability through the sentencing system following conviction. Notwithstanding, those who have ordinary intellectual capacities are expected to act reasonably given their physical condition. Thus, a court would ask whether a blind reasonable person would have set out to do what the particular blind defendant did. People with physical disabilities rightly wish to be active members of the community but, if certain types of activity would endanger others, appropriate precautions must be put in place to ensure that the risks are reasonable.
  
  ## Examples
  
  ### United States
  
  Examples of criminally negligent crimes are criminally negligent homicide and negligent endangerment of a child. Usually the punishment for criminal negligence, criminal recklessness, criminal endangerment, willful blindness and other related crimes is imprisonment, unless the criminal is insane (and then in some cases the sentence is indeterminate).
  
  ### English law
  
  The leading statement to describe 'criminal negligence' at common law for the purposes of establishing a test for manslaughter in the law of England and Wales, is that of Lord Hewart CJ in the case of R v Bateman:
  
     In explaining to juries the test which they should apply to determine whether the negligence, in the particular case, amounted or did not amount to a crime, judges have used many epithets, such as 'culpable', 'criminal', 'gross', 'wicked', 'clear', 'complete'. But, whatever epithet be used and whether an epithet be used or not, in order to establish criminal liability the facts must be such that, in the opinion of the jury, the negligence of the accused went beyond a mere matter of compensation between subjects and showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State and conduct deserving punishment.
  
  For a murder, the mens rea is that of malice aforethought, a deliberate and sometimes premeditated killing. But the larger percentage of deaths result from situations where there is either no intention to injure another, or only an intention to inflict less serious injury. The need is therefore to be able to distinguish between those who happened to be present when another died accidentally or through misadventure, and those who have contributed to the death in a way that makes them criminally rather than merely morally responsible. For example, suppose that A, an expert in kayaking, organises an outing for local children who are learning the sport. They travel to a large lake but, after an hour of paddling, they are overtaken by a violent storm and some of the children drown despite all wearing life-preservers. If all the kayaks, paddles and ancillary equipment are shown to have been in good condition, the storm had not been forecast by the meteorological services, and it was reasonable for these children to undertake this type of outing given their level of skill/swimming, A will not have liability. But if many of the children were too inexperienced and/or a storm had been forecast, A might well be found liable by a jury.
  
  ### Canada
  
  The Criminal Code has a series of offences covering criminal negligence when bodily harm or death is caused. Such laws are sometimes used to prosecute cases of dangerous driving causing injury or death. The maximum penalties for criminal negligence causing bodily harm and death are 10 years (14 years if the conviction is for street racing causing bodily harm) and life imprisonment, respectively.
  
  