Article by Dane S. Ciolino
Most crimes require culpability—proof that the offender committed a prohibited act with a specified blameworthy state of mind. Anglo-American criminal law generally recognizes two distinct classes of culpability: culpability premised on subjective wrongdoing and culpability premised on objective wrongdoing. Crimes requiring subjective wrongdoing typically require proof of “intent,” “purpose,” “knowledge,” or “recklessness,” while crimes requiring only objective wrongdoing require proof of “negligence.” The Louisiana Criminal Code appears to recognize this significant distinction by requiring proof of “criminal intent” for some crimes while requiring proof only of “criminal negligence” for others. Under Louisiana criminal law, however, criminal intent can be proved with evidence of mere negligence. This Article critically evaluates Louisiana culpability doctrine. After summarizing the historical and philosophical bases of culpability, it considers Louisiana's anomalous statutory approach to culpability, an approach that applies an objective standard of conduct to crimes nominally requiring criminal intent. Finally, it calls for a fundamental revision of several culpability-related provisions of the Louisiana Criminal Code.
About the Author
Dane S. Ciolino. Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, New Orleans. B.A.1985, Rhodes College; J.D.1988, Tulane Law School.
Citation
70 Tul. L. Rev. 855 (1996)