INFERRING CULPABILITY FROM NEGLIGENCE

Abstract

In Fundamentals of Criminal Law, Andrew Simester offers a limited defence of the use of negligence in criminal law.1 Simester does not claim that negligence -nor any mens rea element -is inherently culpable. Rather, Simester claims that negligence -with all other mens rea elements -provides evidence from which we may infer culpability. I will retrace Simester’s account to consider how (and why) we may infer culpability from mens rea in general (Part 1), then how we may infer culpability from negligence specifically (Part 2), and finally, how we may infer culpability from the underlying traits which cause us to become negligent (Part 3). Ultimately, I think that the evidence of culpability to be derived from negligence is too weak to meet Simester’s requirements.