From: sheriffcoltrane23x@gmail.com   
      
   Culpability    
      
   "Culpable" redirects here. For other uses, see Culpable (disambiguation).    
   Culpability, or being culpable, is a measure of the degree to which an agent,   
   such as a person, can be held morally or legally responsible for action and   
   inaction. Culpability marks the dividing line between moral evil, like murder,   
   for which someone may    
   be held legally responsible and an act of god, like earthquakes, for which no   
   human can be held responsible. One formulation of the concept is as follows:    
      
   A person is culpable if they cause a negative event and    
   (1) the act was intentional;    
   (2) the act and its consequences could have been controlled (i.e., the agent   
   knew the likely consequences, the agent was not coerced, and the agent   
   overcame hurdles to make the event happen); and    
   (3) the person provided no excuse or justification for the actions.[1]    
   Culpability descends from the Latin concept of fault (culpa). The concept of   
   culpability is intimately tied up with notions of agency, freedom, and free   
   will. All are commonly held to be necessary, but not sufficient, conditions   
   for culpability.    
      
   In law        Edit    
      
   From a legal perspective, culpability describes the degree of one's   
   blameworthiness in the commission of a crime or offense. Except for strict   
   liability crimes, the type and severity of punishment often follow the degree   
   of culpability. "Culpability    
   means, first and foremost, direct involvement in the wrongdoing, such as   
   through participation or instruction", as compared with responsibility merely   
   arising from "failure to supervise or to maintain adequate controls or ethical   
   culture".[2]    
      
   Modern criminal codes in the United States usually make distinct four degrees   
   of culpability.    
      
   Legal definitions are:    
      
   A person acts purposely (criminally) with respect to a material element of an   
   offense when:    
   if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is   
   his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a   
   result; and    
   if the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the   
   existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist.    
   A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when:    
   if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant   
   circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such   
   circumstances exist; and    
   if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is   
   practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.    
   A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when   
   he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the   
   material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of   
   such a nature and degree    
   that, considering the nature and intent of the actor's conduct and the   
   circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the   
   standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's   
   situation.    
   A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense   
   when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the   
   material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of   
   such a nature and degree that    
   the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and intent of his   
   conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from   
   the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's   
   situation.    
   (The above has been quoted verbatim from the Pennsylvania Crimes Code. That in   
   turn derives from the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, which is the   
   basis for large portions of the criminal codes in most states. The only   
   difference is that the    
   MPC uses "purposely" instead of "intentionally".)    
      
   In short:    
      
   A person causes a result purposely if the result is his/her goal in doing the   
   action that causes it,    
   A person causes a result knowingly if he/she knows that the result is   
   virtually certain to occur from the action he/she undertakes,    
   A person causes a result recklessly if he/she is aware of and disregards a   
   substantial and unjustifiable risk of the result occurring from the action,   
   and    
   A person causes a result negligently if there is a substantial and   
   unjustifiable risk he/she is unaware of but should be aware of.    
   The first two types of culpability are each a subset of the following. Thus if   
   someone acts purposely, they also act knowingly. If someone acts knowingly,   
   they also act recklessly.    
      
   The definitions of specific crimes refer to these degrees to establish the   
   mens rea (mental state) necessary for a person to be guilty of a crime. The   
   stricter the culpability requirements, the harder it is for the prosecution to   
   prove its case.    
      
   For instance, the definition of first degree murder (again in PA) is "A   
   criminal homicide constitutes murder of the first degree when it is committed   
   by an intentional killing." Thus to be guilty of murder in the first degree,   
   one must have an explicit    
   goal in one's mind to cause the death of another. On the other hand, reckless   
   endangerment has a much broader requirement: "A person commits a misdemeanor   
   of the second degree if he recklessly engages in conduct which places or may   
   place another person    
   in danger of death or serious bodily injury." Thus to be guilty of this one   
   only needs to be aware of a substantial risk he is putting others in danger   
   of; it does not have to be one's explicit goal to put people in risk. (But, if   
   one's goal is to put    
   others in substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury, this is, of   
   course, sufficient.)   
      
   There is one more type of culpability, and that is strict liability. In strict   
   liability crimes, the actor is responsible no matter what his mental state; if   
   the result occurs, the actor is liable. An example is the felony murder rule:   
   if the prosecution    
   proves beyond reasonable doubt that one commits a qualifying felony (see the   
   article) during which death results, one is held strictly liable for murder   
   and the prosecution does not have to prove any of the normal culpability   
   requirements for murder.    
      
      
   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpability    
      
       
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)