Andifwesaythattheheinousnessofthecrimedependsonthelossofhappinessthatwouldgenerallybecausedbysuchactsiftheywereallowedtogounpunished，andthatwemustsupposethecriminaltobeawareofthis；weseemtobeendeavouringtoforceautilitariantheoryintoanintuitionalformbymeansofalegalfiction。
Wehavehithertospokenofintentionalwrong-doing:
butpositivelawawardspunishmentalsoforharmthatisduetorashnessornegligence；andthejustificationofthisinvolvesusinfurtherdifficulties。
Somejuristsseemtoregardrashnessandnegligenceaspositivestatesofmind，inwhichtheagentconsciouslyrefusestheattentionorreflectionwhichheknowsheoughttogive；andnodoubtthissortofwilfulrecklessnessdoessometimesoccur，andseemsasproperlypunishableasiftheresultingharmhadbeenpositivelyintended。Butthelawasactuallyadministereddoesnotrequireevidencethatthiswastheagent’sstateofmindwhichindeedinmostcasesitwouldbeimpossibletogive:butiscontentwithproofthattheharmmighthavebeenpreventedbysuchcareasanaveragemanwouldhaveshownunderthecircumstances。Andmostcommonlyby`carelessness’
wesimplymeanapurelynegativepsychologicalfact，i。e。thattheagentdidnotperformcertainprocessesofobservationorreflection；itisthereforeatthetimestrictlyinvoluntary，andsoscarcelyseemstoinvolveill-desert。Itmaybesaidperhapsthatthoughthepresentcarelessnessisnotblameworthy，thepastneglecttocultivatehabitsofcareisso。