It is widely agreed that the top three Model Penal Code culpability levels suffice for criminal liability, but the fourth is controversial. And it isn’t just the particular MPC wording; that negligence should be on the list at all is controversial. My question is: What (if anything) makes negligence so different? What is it about negligence that gives rise to the view that it should not suffice for criminal liability? In addressing it, I draw attention to how we conduct the debate, and how our framing of the issues is shaping it (maybe leading some scholars to view negligence as less suitable as a species of mens rea than it in fact is, maybe leading those who want to argue that it does suffice for criminal liability to develop an account of negligence that meets some requirement that should not have to be met). My hope is to prompt thought and discussion on just what we want the element of mens rea to provide, and to draw attention to background assumptions that shape our views of what it should take for negligence to count as a species of mens rea (or, framed differently, to suffice for criminal liability).

中文翻译：

---

过失，门禁服务以及我们希望门禁服务提供的要素

人们普遍认为，《刑法典》的前三大罪责级别足以承担刑事责任，但第四个是有争议的。这不仅仅是特定的MPC措辞；过失应该完全列入清单是有争议的。我的问题是：什么（如果有的话）使过失如此不同？过失是什么引起了人们认为不应该承担刑事责任的观点？在解决这个问题时，我提请注意我们如何进行辩论，以及我们对问题的看法如何塑造了这场辩论（也许导致一些学者认为过失不如实际上是一种男人所认为的适当，也许可以领导那些过失。谁想辩称，建立满足某些不应该满足的要求的过失帐户就足以承担刑事责任）。