WordNet

(sports) a serve that is illegal (e.g., that lands outside the prescribed area); "he served too many double faults"
responsibility for a bad situation or event; "it was Johns fault"
(geology) a crack in the earths crust resulting from the displacement of one side with respect to the other; "they built it right over a geological fault"; "he studied the faulting of the earths crust" (同)faulting, geological fault, shift, fracture, break
(electronics) equipment failure attributable to some defect in a circuit (loose connection or insulation failure or short circuit etc.); "it took much longer to find the fault than to fix it"
identify incorrectly; "Dont mistake her for her twin sister" (同)misidentify
a wrong action attributable to bad judgment or ignorance or inattention; "he made a bad mistake"; "she was quick to point out my errors"; "I could understand his English in spite of his grammatical faults" (同)error, fault
an understanding of something that is not correct; "he wasnt going to admit his mistake"; "make no mistake about his intentions"; "there must be some misunderstanding--I dont have a sister" (同)misunderstanding, misapprehension
anything that happens suddenly or by chance without an apparent cause; "winning the lottery was a happy accident"; "the pregnancy was a stroke of bad luck"; "it was due to an accident or fortuity" (同)stroke, fortuity, chance event
an unfortunate mishap; especially one causing damage or injury
failure to act with the prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances (同)carelessness, neglect, nonperformance
the trait of neglecting responsibilities and lacking concern (同)neglect, neglectfulness

PrepTutorEJDIC

非難に価すること;有罪
〈C〉『欠点』,短所(defect) / 〈C〉『誤り』,落ち度 / 〈U〉(過失の)『責任』,罪 / 〈C〉断層(地層の食い違い) / 〈C〉フォールト(テニスなどでサーブの失敗) / …‘の'あら捜しをする / あやまちを犯す / 断層を生じる
『誤り』,『間違い』;誤解,思い違い / …‘を'『間違って考える』,誤解する / 《『mistake』+『名』+『for』+『名』》(別の物・人と)…‘を'『取り違える』
〈C〉『偶然』,偶発,めぐり合わせ / 〈C〉『事故』,災難
(習慣的な)『怠慢』,不注意,落ち度;(法律で)過失 / 『むとんじゃく』,だらしなさ

Wikipedia preview

出典(authority):フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』「2016/01/08 23:42:43」(JST)

wiki en

[Wiki en表示]

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

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:
1. 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
2. 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:
1. 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
2. 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.

References

^ Blair H. Sheppard, Roy J. Lewicki, John W. Minton, Organizational Justice: The Search for Fairness in the Workplace, p. 59.
^ Marco Arnone, Leonardo S. Borlini, Corruption: Economic Analysis and International Law (2014), p. 297.

UpToDate Contents

全文を閲覧するには購読必要です。 To read the full text you will need to subscribe.

1. 仲間による暴力および暴力防止 peer violence and violence prevention
2. 医療相談および周術期医療の原則の概要 overview of the principles of medical consultation and perioperative medicine

English Journal

Perceptions of juvenile sexual abuse victims: a meta-analysis on vignette-based studies on the effects of victims' age and respondents' gender.

Font SA.Sourcea University of Wisconsin-Madison , Madison , Wisconsin , USA.
Journal of child sexual abuse.J Child Sex Abus.2013 Jul;22(5):593-611. doi: 10.1080/10538712.2013.800934.
This study synthesizes results of vignette-based studies on lay perceptions of juvenile sexual victimization. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify factors affecting perceptions of juvenile sexual abuse victims. Then meta-analytic techniques were utilized to calculate average effe
PMID 23829834

Commercially sexually exploited girls and participant perceptions of blameworthiness: examining the effects of victimization history and race disclosure.

Menaker TA, Franklin CA.Source1Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA.
Journal of interpersonal violence.J Interpers Violence.2013 Jul;28(10):2024-51. doi: 10.1177/0886260512471078. Epub 2013 Jan 8.
Prostitution among female youth has been largely misunderstood, trivialized, or ignored. Increased attention has been directed toward juvenile female delinquency, particularly related to the overlap in their status as victims and offenders. Areas in this research continue to be underinvestigated, ho
PMID 23300196

"I don't blame that guy that gave it to me": Contested discourses of victimisation and culpability in the narratives of heterosexual women infected with HIV.

Persson A.Sourcea National Centre in HIV Social Research , University of New South Wales , Sydney , NSW , Australia.
AIDS care.AIDS Care.2013 Jun 27. [Epub ahead of print]
In Australia, most women with HIV were infected through heterosexual sex, echoing global patterns. In media coverage, these women are typically portrayed as having been deceived by men they trusted, or as victims in criminal cases against HIV-positive men from high-prevalence countries. Heterosexual
PMID 23803151