The justification of accountability is a key part of any trial, as it is here that the court presents its findings of guilt or innocence. In order to consider negligence, the court must first justify the defendant’s actions, as the violation of duty-bound action is a prerequisite for the responsibility for negligence. In the majority of the cases we will discuss, the justification of the subjective criteria of duty-bound action and negligence are indistinguishable, which demonstrates the two-sided nature of negligence: as part of guilt and as part of the action. In cases dealing with severe consequences conscious negligence is typically attributed to the defendant by the prosecutor without any true basis in physical evidence. In these cases, the court wrongly attributes conscious negligence despite the absence of the conscious aspect. The attribution is often made on the basis s that the defendant was aware of the violation of the duty-bound action; however, in most cases, the defendant is not aware of the prohibited consequence, which can become an issue if the court does not distinguish between action and guilt. Various problems arise in the case of unconscious negligence, especially regarding the evaluation of the defendant and their abilities, what they could and should have been aware of.
|
