Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Dear Doctor

Go To

Williams, G. Taking Responsibility for Negligence and Non-negligence. Criminal Law, Philosophy 14, 113–134 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-019-09506-8

"Conclusion

Negligence highlights a fundamental aspect of human agency: we do and cause things unawares. We may fail to keep track of the world around us—sometimes in ways that are fundamentally incompatible with our adult powers to act and affect others. One view is that even the worst forms of negligence cannot be criminal: we can be culpable only for what we control, not our failures of control; we control our conscious decisions, and only those. But we do not ‘control’ our decisions: we simply decide, be it reflectively or reflexively. Conscious awareness is neither necessary nor sufficient for control. Deliberate attention may mark someone who is less in control: the learner, or someone facing an unfamiliar (hence especially risky) situation. Deliberate and weak-willed wrongs are failures of control, too.

A full account of culpability has been beyond my scope. But I have suggested that the collective dimensions of non-negligence provide useful clues. The requirements of Thou shalt take care are not delivered by individual reason or good will or explicit instruction. We must take responsibility for judging matters, together. Before we pin blame, we should consider how our collective activities contributed to some harm or near-miss. (I think parallel points apply even to simpler Thou shalt not-s, but that is another story.) Thou shalt take care is not primarily about conscious effort or awareness. We often do more and less and different than we mean to—and must take responsibility for this, not least by collective activities that enable each of us to act with greater control. (I think parallel points apply to most Thou shalt not-s, though I have only made a few gestures to weak-willed and selfish wrongdoing.) Taking responsibility does not demand mea culpa before every risk that eventuates: our responsibility is bounded by carefully worked-out standards of care. But we must also take responsibility for those standards, not just in the observance but also in the breach. In holding responsible, we take some responsibility for the culprit’s agency (perhaps our own). In the happier cases, we contribute to someone’s self-understanding and self-control (perhaps our own). In other cases, we take back (some) control. We may affect a person’s powers to act in the world, removing trust, exacting compensation, denying authorisations. In the worst cases, criminal proceedings impose their unanswerable condemnation on those who disregard even minimal standards of care. In each case, however, I have suggested that we anchor ‘culpability’ in duties to take responsibility for our agency—our own, and one another’s. In our inner lives as in the world we share, control is often a more fallible and fragile achievement than we care to admit. It demands our ongoing care."

Interesting question, Prof الأستاذ المساعد الدكتور يوسف نوري حمه باقي

I honed in at the trespassing part of it.

'In the UK: Trespass to land is a civil wrong under the law of tort. Trespass is not, for the most part, a criminal offence. However, trespass on residential property which amounts to 'squatting' has been a criminal offence since 2012.'

https://www.claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/land-law/trespass#:~:text=Trespass%20to%20land%20is%20a,a%20criminal%20offence%20since%202012.

Squatting is interesting:

'Squatting is when someone deliberately enters property without permission and lives there, or intends to live there. This is sometimes known as ‘adverse possession’.

Squatting in residential buildings (like a house or flat) is illegal. It can lead to 6 months in prison, a £5,000 fine or both.

Anyone who originally enters a property with the permission of the landlord is not a squatter. For example, if you’re renting a property and fall behind with rent payments you’re not squatting if you continue to live there.'

https://www.gov.uk/squatting-law#:~:text=Squatting%20in%20residential%20buildings%20(like,landlord%20is%20not%20a%20squatter.

Squatters can have rights:

'Squatters' rights to property

A long-term squatter can become the registered owner of property or land they’ve occupied without the owner’s permission.'

'You can apply if you can prove:

• you, or a succession of squatters, have occupied the property continuously for 10 years (12 years if it’s not registered with HM Land Registry)
• you (or your predecessors) acted as owners of the property for the whole of that time
• you (or any of your predecessors) did not have the owner’s permission, for example the property was not originally rented to a squatter'

https://www.gov.uk/squatting-law/squatters-rights-to-property

No required by law, ignoring, transgressing and toleranting the mistakes and lapses must to give punishment. Because it is about legal norm not ethics norm. It is abou legal norm and legal certainty as a goal of the law.

No, ignoring, transgressing, and tolerating the mistakes and lapses of others is not required by law. In fact, it can be illegal in some cases.

BUT There are also ethical and moral considerations to take into account. Ignoring or tolerating wrongdoing can have negative consequences for others, such as allowing the abuse of children or the spread of workplace safety hazards. In some cases, it may even be considered complicity in the wrongdoing.

• QUESTION ALSO NEEDED RESEARCH IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF LAW AND ETHICS

It is not encouraged to tolerate those who make mistakes, except within narrow limits, for several reasons:

For example, in the case of committing a crime for which the punishment is not severe, such as violations and misdemeanors punishable by less than two years in prison, here the aggrieved party has the right to forgive and reconcile with the offender (according to the Moroccan criminal law).

But if the punishment is severe, such as imprisonment for more than one year for misdemeanors and violations, then there is no right to forgive and reconcile with the wrongdoer because the matter concerns society.

The law also permits legitimate defense, which indicates intolerance for wrongdoing so as not to cause chaos in society. At the same time, criminals must be reported via contact numbers...

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

Good question

سؤال جيد

Good question

Excellent question

Excellent question

Excellent question

Excellent question

Excellent question