(F) Frank has sexual relations with Violet and makes a negligent mistake about her age, believing that she is eighteen when she is actually fifteen (G) George has sexual relations with Violet and is negligently inadvertent to her age: he forms no belief about her age and fails to realize that she is actually fifteen (H) Harriet, in using deadly force against Vanna, negligently fails to realize that Vanna is not threatening Harriet with deadly force Irma, in using deadly force against Vanna, lacks any definite beliefs about the severity of Vanna's threat, but negligently fails to control her impulse to respond to Vanna's attack with deadly force Now consider the following questions Is Claude's failure to foresee the risk of injury sufficient to show that he is negligent in the same sense as Alon or Boris? More generally: Are the conceptions of negligent inadvertence(e.g Claude. Ge and negligent mistake (e.g, Frank) essentially the same as the conception of negligent risk-creation(e.g, Alon, Boris)? Is the category of deficient skill (e.g. Edna) an instance of negligent risk-creation, or of negligent inadvertence or negligent mistake? Or is it a separate category altogether? knowingly drives her car, and Delbert, who "purposely drives his car. Normally, knowledge and purpose are considered more serious forms of culpability than negligence. Yet David is conclusively at fault, while Donna and Delbert are not. What explains this paradox Is negligent lack of self-control (e.g. Irma)a coherent form of negligence? In this essay, I will explore these questions, and others, concerning different dimensions or categories of negligence. The next section of the essay analyzes the standard tort conception of negligence as unreasonably risky conduct. The following section evaluates the modern criminal law conception of Simons, Dimensions of Negligence 8/7/02(F) Frank has sexual relations with Violet and makes a negligent mistake about her age, believing that she is eighteen when she is actually fifteen. (G) George has sexual relations with Violet and is negligently inadvertent to her age: he forms no belief about her age and fails to realize that she is actually fifteen. (H) Harriet, in using deadly force against Vanna, negligently fails to realize that Vanna is not threatening Harriet with deadly force. (I) Irma, in using deadly force against Vanna, lacks any definite beliefs about the severity of Vanna’s threat, but negligently fails to control her impulse to respond to Vanna’s attack with deadly force. Now consider the following questions. • Is Claude’s failure to foresee the risk of injury sufficient to show that he is negligent in the same sense as Alon or Boris? • More generally: Are the conceptions of negligent inadvertence (e.g. Claude, George) and negligent mistake (e.g., Frank) essentially the same as the conception of negligent risk-creation (e.g., Alon, Boris)? If not, how do they differ? • Is the category of deficient skill (e.g. Edna) an instance of negligent risk-creation, or of negligent inadvertence or negligent mistake? Or is it a separate category altogether? • Compare David (above) with two new characters—Donna, who “knowingly drives her car,” and Delbert, who “purposely drives his car.” Normally, knowledge and purpose are considered more serious forms of culpability than negligence. Yet David is conclusively at fault, while Donna and Delbert are not. What explains this paradox? • Is negligent lack of self-control (e.g. Irma) a coherent form of negligence? In this essay, I will explore these questions, and others, concerning different dimensions or categories of negligence. The next section of the essay analyzes the standard tort conception of negligence as unreasonably risky conduct. The following section evaluates the modern criminal law conception of Page 3 of 57 Simons, Dimensions of Negligence 8/7/02